Mamoud Mohammed and Richard Boahene Quaye v. The Republic

KANYOKE, J. A. : On the 14th of October 2011 the appellants herein were tried and convicted for the offences of conspiracy to rob and robbery contrary to Sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Each of them was sentenced on each count to 40 years I. H. L. to run concurrently.

Dissatisfied with their conviction and sentence, each of the appellants filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence.

The 1st appellant filed the notice of appeal on the 4th November 2011 whilst the 2nd appellant filed his notice of appeal on the 16th day of November 2011. The 1st appellant initially filed four grounds of appeal and subsequently filed thirty (30) additional grounds of appeal pursuant to leave granted by this court on 5th September 2012. On the 26th of March 2013, counsel for the 1st appellant, with the leave of the court, withdrew all the previously filed original and additional grounds of appeal and replaced same with the fallowing new grounds of appeal: "a. The basis for the appellant's arrest was information allegedly provided to a police infonnant by one Marcus Tekpah described as the ringleader of the robbery.

Marcus Tekpah had been prosecuted and convicted earlier by the same trial court, but the trial judge ruled erroneously that Marcus Tekpah was unavailable to be cross-examined by the appellant.

c. During the trial of appellant, the trial judge relied solely on the identification of appellant by Pw 1 and Pw2 at police identification parades.

However, the trial judge failed to take into account that both Pw 1 and Pw2 had had the opportunity to take a close look at appellant while in police custody before.

the said identification parades were arranged.

c. The trial judge failed to take into account the evidence of appellant's alibi, given in court by appellant's girlfriend and erroneously stated in his judgment that the appellant had failed to call a witness to prove his alibi. "In his Notice of Appeal, the 2nd appellant also filed eleven (11) grounds of appeal as follows at pages 461-462 of the ROA: "1. That the conviction and sentence is against the weight of evidence.

2. The trial judge erred in failing to consider the key evidence of the complainant exculpating the convict.

3. The prosecution concealed evidence that it admitted would have exculpated the convict.

4. Additional grounds shall be filed upon the receipt of the entire record of proceedings.

5. As a result of prosecutorial misconduct, the