LIVINGSTONE AFEDZI @ CHAKA v. THE REPUBIC
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARIAMA OWUSU (J.A) PRESIDING
- AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A)
- HENRY A. KWOFIE (J.A)
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment for conspiracy to commit robbery based largely on his confession statements, which he argued were defective. The appeal focused on the alleged defects in the confession statements, whether the trial judge wrongfully accepted those statements, whether the defense was adequately considered, and whether the sentence was excessively harsh. The court found the confession statements to be properly taken and admitted into evidence. They ruled that the trial judge adequately considered the defense but acknowledged that the sentence was excessively harsh and reduced it to 30 years. The appeal was largely dismissed except for the adjustment in sentencing.
AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A):
On the 17th day of January 2007, the Appellant was together with six others were convicted of the offences of Conspiracy to commit crime to wit robbery.
Some of the others were additionally convicted of the offence of robbery.
The Court delivered the reasons for its judgment on 1st February 2008.The facts of this case relating to the Appellant are that, he helped one Awuley Lartey a.k.a. Dada, (an accused, now at large) to procure the services of the 1st Accused, an ex-soldier, to help rob one Rose Narh & two others on 30th January 2002 while they were conveying the proceeds of their days sale to their house on board a vehicle.
The said robbery was successfully committed.The Appellant appeals against both his conviction and sentence on the following grounds filed on 11th February 2016.
i) That the trial judge erred in law by convicting appellant exclusively on defective confession statements of the Appellant.
ii) That the trial judge wrongfully accepted the confession statements in evidence when the said confession statements were not written and read over by the independent witness to the Appellant iii) That the trial judge failed to consider adequately the Defence put up by the Appellant.
iv) The sentence imposed on the Appellant was excessively harsh having regard to all the mitigating factors and circumstances of the cause.
v) Additional ground of appeal will be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings. It is to be noted for the record that no additional grounds were filed.Counsel for the Appellant argued the first two grounds together.T he crux of his arguments is that the Appellants confession statements were not taken in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and so the learned trial Judge should not have admitted same into evidence.
To quote counsel, the statements .had not been written and read over by the Independent witness to the appellant which he appeared to understand and so admitting them into evidence and convicting the Appellant exclusively on these defective confession statements was an error. In response to these arguments, Counsel for the Respondent submits that it is not the duty of the Independent witness to WRITEand READ over the contents of a confession statement to the Appellant in circumstances such as the present and so the failure to do so did not render the statements defective.
Counsel further submits that the case of Akrofi Kudoadji V The Republic cited by counsel fo