Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
March 15, 2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
The appellants herein and one other at large were arraigned before the Accra Circuit Court on the following counts: Count one: Conspiracy to steal contrary to Sections 23(1) and 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29. It was 1st and 2nd Appellant who were charged under this count.
Count Two: Stealing contrary to Section 124(1) of Act 29/60. The 1st Appellant was the one charged under this count.
Count Three: Abetment of crime to wit stealing contrary to Section 20(1) and 124 of Act 29/60. The 2nd appellant and B2 at large were charged under this count.
Count Four: Money Laundering contrary to Section 1(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2008 Act 749. It was 2nd Appellant who was charged under this count.
The 1st and 2nd Appellants on the 18th of September 2018 pleaded not guilty to all the charges after same were read and explained to them in the Twi language.
After a full trial, the trial circuit court judge, on the 11th day of September 2023 found the appellants guilty of the offences charged and sentenced the appellants as follows: “Count 1 – Conspiracy- A1 is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour.
A2 is sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with hard labour.
Count 2- Stealing –A1 is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with hard labour Count 3-abetment-A2 is sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with hard labour Count 4- money laundering- 10 years imprisonment with hard labour.
Sentences to run concurrently”The trial judge in making orders for restitution stated that the baby products listed and retrieved from the shop should be released to the complainant.
The court also ordered the 1st and 2nd appellants to pay the total amount of GH712, 229. 00 to the complainant.
It is against this judgment that the appellants filed the instant appeal on the 6th of October 2023 praying for the whole judgment of the trial Circuit Judge dated the 11th day of September 2023 convicting and sentencing the appellants to be set aside.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL: The grounds of appeal are: A. That the conviction cannot be supported by the evidence on record.
B. That the trial judge erred when she failed to conduct a mini trial after an objection was raised by the 1st and 2nd accused persons regarding the tendering of their caution statements and/or the confession statements.
C. That the trial judge erred when she failed woefully to properly consider the defence presented by the accused persons during the trial D. The trial judge erred when she failed w
AI Generated Summary
This High Court criminal appeal arises from convictions of two appellants who, according to the prosecution, conspired and acted together to remove baby and mother-care products from the complainant Mavis’s Mavobed Enterprise, stock a shop at Weija and later Kasoa (Royal Mother Care), and use proceeds to acquire a plot at Tetegu and a Toyota Venza. The appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court’s failure to conduct a mini trial on their caution/charge statements, credibility of the investigator (PW8), exclusion of a secret audio recording, contradictions in the prosecution’s case, reliance on an audit report, and harsh sentences. The High Court held that the trial judge erred by not conducting a mini trial and excluded the confession statements on appeal, but nevertheless found legally admitted evidence established conspiracy, stealing, abetment, and money laundering. The secret recording was properly excluded under privacy-rights discretion and the audit figure was found inaccurate for quantum. Convictions were affirmed; sentences were reduced (4–5 years) to run concurrently from September 11, 2023, and restitution releasing seized goods was affirmed.