JOHN DAVID LOGAN FRANK DAVID LAVERICK v. THE REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT

ANINAKWAH, J.S.C.

The Appellants are both British subjects. On the 28th day of January, 2004, they were charged jointly with four (4) others on two Counts:-

1. Engaging in Criminal conspiracy to commit an offence relating to Narcotic Drug contrary to Section 56(c.) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Law, P.N.D.C.L 236.

Particulars of the offence given as follows:-

“Kevin Dinsdale Gorman, Mohammed Kamil, John David Logan, Frank David Laverick, Allan William Hodgson and Sven Leonhard Herb between September 2003 and 7th January 2004 in Spain, United Kingdom and Tema Ghana engaged in Criminal conspiracy to commit an offence relating to narcotic drug”.

2. Possession of Narcotic Drugs without Lawful Authority contrary to Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Law, 1990, P.N.D.C.L. 236.

The particulars of this offence are given thus:

“ Kevin Dinsdale Gorman, Mohammed Ibrahim Kamil, John David Logan, Frank David Laverick, Allan William Hodgson and Sven Leonhard Herb between 30th December, 2003 and 7th January, 2004 at Tema in the Greater Accra Region and within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal had in their possession 588.33 Kilograms of Cocaine, a Narcotic Drug”.

All the accused persons pleaded “NOT guilty” and were remanded in custody.

After a full trial all the accused persons were convicted and Sentenced to 20 (Twenty) years I.H.L each, sentences to run concurrently.

Dissatisfied with their convictions and sentences, John David Logan, Frank David Laverick and Allan William Hodgson appealed to the Court of Appeal on many and various grounds.

On 4th November 2005, the Court of Appeal by a Majority of 2 to 1 decision dismissed the appellants’ appeal.

Still not satisfied, the appellants, this time – John David Logan, and Frank David Laverick are now before this Court on appeal and praying that their convictions be quashed and sentences set aside. Their appeal is grounded on as many as Seven (7) Original grounds and four additional grounds with most of them repeating themselves. For purposes of this Appeal I find ground (a) of the original grounds and ground 4 of the additional grounds both of them saying the same thing as the most pertinent grounds, and are hereby stated as one hereunder.

“ That the Verdicts of both the trial Court and the Court of Appeal are unreasonable and not supported by the evidence on record”.

Other grounds would be referred to in the course of this judgment as