KOFI AMUZU v. THE REPUBLIC

This is an appeal by the Appellant against the sentence imposed by the trial judge

following the conviction of the Appellant on his own plea of guilty with explanation.

The Appellant, together with one Samuel Kwesi Bekoe (alias One Corner), was

arraigned before the Circuit Court, Cape Coast, on the charges of conspiracy to steal

contrary to sections 23(1) and 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and

Stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

The Appellant pleaded guilty with explanation. However, upon listening to the

explanation proffered by the Appellant, the learned trial judge entered a plea of guilty

as the explanation he rendered to the court did not disclose any reasonable defence to

the charges. Thereupon, the trial judge convicted the Appellant on his own plea to a

term of Thirty (30) years imprisonment in hard labour. It is against this sentence that

the instant appeal has been brought.

At page 9 of Record of Appeal, the trial judge stated that:

I have noted that A2 has been so honest with the court by pleading guilty and

providing honest explanation. I have also noted that A2 was convicted and sentenced

from this very court on a similar offence. I have also noted that section 296(5) gives

the maximum imprisonment sentence as 25 years and because A2 is known he is to

serve twice the maximum imprisonment. However, for A2’s honesty, the court hereby

sentence A2 to thirty years IHL for count one and thirty years IHL for count two.

Sentence to run concurrently.

It is trite learning that sentencing is widely at the discretion of the court. However, the

exercise of this discretion must not be arbitrary, capricious or bias. (See Article 296 of

the 1992 Constitution). The discretion in imposing a sentence is not unlimited and

should be exercised within the statutory limits imposed on the court.

Sentencing may only be interfered with where it is shown that the trial court acted on

wrong principles or that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Thus, where the sentence imposed by the trial judge is well within the maximum

prescribed by law, an appellate court may not disturb same merely because it would

have given a lighter sentence if it had tried the case at first instance.

See BANDA V THE REPUBLIC [1975] 1 GLR 52; FRANCIS ARTHUR V THE

REPUBLIC (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: H2/09/2018) DATED 21 FEBRUARY, 2019

(DELIVERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL).

Suffice it to say that, no judge has juris