KWABENA NKETIA v. THE REPUBLIC
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. AYEBI, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- G. TORKORNOO (MRS), J.A.
- A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.), J.A.
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against conviction for robbery, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding his identity as one of the perpetrators. The trial judge erred by not making findings of fact, not giving reasons for the conviction, and failing to adequately consider the defense case. The court emphasized the importance of proving all elements of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, including the perpetrator's identity, and highlighted that the weakness of an accused's case does not absolve the prosecution from its burden of proof. The appeal court also noted procedural errors in sentencing, such as making the sentence retroactive to the date of arrest rather than the date of pronouncement.
DOMAKYAAREH (MRS),J. A.
1. The appellant in this case was convicted on April 19 2007 for Robbery contrary to S. 149 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) by the High Court, Kumasi. He was sentenced to 28 years Imprisonment with Hard Labour with effect from 5th January 2006, the day of his arrest. By this reckoning, the appellant has spent 10 years 10 months of the sentence.
2. What led to this state of affairs? According to the facts of the case from the prosecutions side, the complainant, one Cecilia Kusi, lives at Apraman in Kumasi while the appellant, then accused is a driver who lives at Anwomaso. On 5th January 2006 at about 7: 00 pm, the complainant boarded a taxi with registration number GT 9104 Q at Ahodwo Roundabout in order to go to Daban. On the way the driver diverted the course and the complainant started shouting for help. There were two other young men in the taxi and they held the complainant’s mouth and forcibly collected her handbag which contained US$400.00, C¢1,030,000.00 (GH¢1,030.00), one Nokia mobile phone, a gold watch, a necklace and other valuable items. The robbers then pushed the complainant out of the taxi and drove away. Some people in a car chased the taxi used by the robbers but the robbers abandoned the taxi at a point and took to their heels. A Police Patrol Team came to the scene and escorted the complainant to the Central Police Station. The abandoned taxi was also taken to the Police Station. The complainant later identified the accused who came to the Police Station to lodge a complaint to the Police. The accused said he was the driver of the taxi which was used to rob the complainant. He alleged that his taxi had been taken away from him earlier in the day i. e. 5th January 2006. It was thereafter that the complainant was robbed. On the basis of these facts, the accused was arranged before court and charged with the offence of Robbery contrary to S. 149 of Act 29/60 as amended by Act 646/2003.
3. During the course of the trial, a mini trial was conducted. This was on account of the fact that PW3, Detective Constable Isaac Ofori Number 35778 during his evidence -in- chief, attempted to tender the Cautioned Statement which he took from the accused into evidence. The accused objected to its admission stating that he thumb-printed his Statement and never signed it because he is an illiterate but the Statement that was being tendered had a signature.
The independent witness who was present when the Statement wa