LAAR BABITA & ANOTHER v. THE REPUBLIC
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OFOE, J.A
- BARTELS-KODWO,J.A
- BERNASKO ESSAH,J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Victor Ofoe, writing for the Ghana Court of Appeal, addressed an appeal by farmers Laar (A1) and Mapatua (A2) arising from their guilty pleas to firearm-related offenses after a Bunkpurugu assemblyman and police intercepted them carrying an AK-47 rifle concealed under a smock with two rounds of ammunition. The Attorney General, as respondent, urged reliance on section 31(2) of the Courts Act (Act 459) and section 406 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act (Act 30), emphasizing that technical irregularities should not vitiate convictions absent a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court held the misdescription of A1/A2 and plea-recording irregularities were procedural, upheld Mapatua’s abetment under section 20(1) of Act 29, rejected interpreter complaints as unsupported by the record, and reduced each sentence from five years to three years, otherwise dismissing the appeal.
OFOE, J.A
On a cursory reading of the record of appeal we are convinced that the respondent, Attorney General, provided the appropriate responses needed to dispose of this appeal. As he rightly pointed out, a consideration of section 31(2) of the Courts Act, Act 459 and section 406 of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, Act 30 are the relevant statutes to consider in this appeal which mainly raises technical objections. We will quote these sections:
“2. The court shall dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred or that the point raised in the appeal consists of technicality or procedural error or a defect in the charge sheet or indictment but there is evidence to support the offence alleged in the statement of offence in the charge or indictment or any other offence of which the accused could have been convicted upon that charge or indictment”.
Section 406(1)
“1. Subject to this part a finding, sentence or other passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall not be reversed or altered or altered on appeal or review on account
(a) Of an error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment, or any other proceedings before or during trial or in an enquiry or any other proceedings under this Act or
(b) Of the omission to revise a list of jurors in accordance with part Five or
(c) Of a misdirection in a charge to the jury
Unless the error, omissions, irregularity, or misdirection has in fact occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.
3. In determining whether an error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice, the court shall consider the question whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.
These are clear statutory provisions aimed at sustaining decisions and orders of the court where the party’s complaints relate to omissions, irregularities or mere technical grievances in the face of clear evidence supporting the decision under enquiry.
We can now consider the appeal before us. First the facts as presented by the prosecution
“Complainants in this case are Policemen from Bunkprugu. Both accused persons are farmers. 1st accused reside at Bimbago while 2nd accused also is resident of Jakade near Bunkprugu. On 6/08/2019 about 12pm 2nd accused was in his farm when 1st accused called him on phone to meet him at a Bimbago junction. 2nd