Mawuli alias Shortie v. The Republic
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Welbourne (Mrs), J.A. (Presiding)
- Aryene (Mrs), J.A.
- Baah, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Eric Baah, writing for the Ghana Court of Appeal, considered an appeal by the third accused from a High Court conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery arising from the Osu Glory Oil Filling station incident. The prosecutions trial evidence comprised PW1 George Sackey, who could not identify any assailant, and PW2 Detective Chief Inspector Seth Agyapong, who lacked firsthand knowledge and simply tendered statements. The trial courts decision rested on alleged confession statements not found in the appellate record. Counsel for the Republic candidly conceded the judgments unsustainability. Applying Supreme Court guidance on incomplete records and invoking Rule 63 to waive late filing due to the appellants self-representation, the court found the record inadequate, reconstruction impossible, retrial infeasible, and the evidence insufficient. It upheld the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, ordered the appellants unconditional discharge, and recommended structured inquiries where trial records go missing.
BAAH, J.A
BACKGROUND
Appellant was the third of five accused persons charged before the High Court, Accra, on 18 August 2010, with two offences namely, conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery, contrary to Sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act,1960 (Act 2) and robbery, contrary to Section 149, Act 29. The Charge Sheet indicated that the 4th accused was at large. Even though all the four accused persons were recorded as being present, only the pleas of 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused persons appear at page 2 of the Record of Appeal. All three accused persons pleaded not guilty to both counts.
A plenary trial ensued after which the court in its judgment of 29th July 2014, convicted the accused on both counts and sentenced each to a prison term of 30 years imprisonment, with the sentences running concurrently.
The instant appeal was filed by Appellant who was the 3rd accused at the trial. The appeal is against conviction and sentence. The date of filing the petition is not legible. In its submission, counsel for the Republic explained that Appellant was granted leave on 24 July 2019 to file the appeal out of time, and yet filed the appeal long after the given time. He explained that since Appellant is self-represented, the state was not raising the irregularity in filing the petition out of time. This court decided to apply Rule 63 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C. I.19) to waive Appellant’s noncompliance by failing to file his appeal within the time extended for him to do so. The reasons for our decision are that he is self-represented (pro se) and faced several constraints by reason of his confinement.
Appellant contends that the conviction and sentence cannot be by the law. He placed before this court, eight grounds of appeal which in sum are to the effect that by reason of the unprofessional nature of the trial and the deficient record of appeal, the prosecution could not have been adjudged to have proven beyond reasonable doubt, the offences of conspiracy and robbery. On that account, he prayed the court to uphold the appeal and set aside the judgment.
In an act of candour, and in the best traditions of the legal profession, counsel for the Republic in its written submission, conceded to the unsustainability of the judgment.
The rules of advocacy require a prosecutor to reveal to the court, all mitigating circumstances that inure to the benefit of the accused. He should not attempt to obtain conviction at all costs. He should not rega