GH - JOSEPH OBENG VS THE REPUBLIC

The Appellant then accused was charged with defilement contrary to section 101 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The particulars of the offence are that on or about a date in July, 2021, at Suhum, the accused did carnally know and impregnated a minor who was fourteen years at the time.

The accused was arraigned before the Circuit Court, Suhum.

The charge against the accused was read and explained to him in the Twi language.

The accused pleaded guilty and was convicted on his own plea of the offence preferred against him.

The accused was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment.

Appellant is aggrieved by the sentence and appeals against the sentence on the following grounds: i. That the Court failed to explain to the petitioner the effect of taking a plea to the charge and particulars of the offence for which he was arraigned before the court thus the inability of the petitioner to appreciate the severity of the offence to make a proper plea, thus occasioning a grave miscarriage of justice.

That the court failed to consider all mitigating factors in imposing the sentence of twelve years (12) IHL on the appellant.

That since the appellant was a first-time offender the sentence imposed on him by the Circuit Court was harsh and excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case.

That since the appellant pleaded guilty simpliciter and did not waste time of the court, the Circuit Court erred in imposing a harsher and excessive sentence.

Ground 1 In arguing ground one, it was contended that the accused did not fully understand nor did he appreciate the plea of guilty he was making would amount to his conviction and sentence.

It was further contended that a plea of guilty waives one’s right to several Constitutional rights including his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, and his rights to call witnesses and go through a full trial.

In that regard, it was argued, that the accused must be aware of the direct consequences of the plea for him to be deemed to have waived his rights.

Appellant’s Counsel submitted that it is therefore important that the record of proceedings should expressly state that the accused voluntarily and conscientiously made the guilty plea.

Counsel for Appellant cited section 199(1) of the Criminal And Other Offences(Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) and argued that the court owed the accused a very important duty when unrepresented to explain to him the nature of the charge and the procedure to be followed