OWUSU BANAHENE v. REPUBLIC
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ADINYIRA (MRS), JSC (PRESIDING)
- DOTSE, JSC
- YEBOAH, JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
- PWAMANG, JSC
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, Owusu Banahene, along with two others, was convicted of conspiracy to steal and stealing building materials worth GH¢2,050,000.00 from his uncle's company, Iron Birds Company. Convicted on February 11, 2011, he received a sentence of 20 years imprisonment while the others were sentenced to 10 and 15 years, respectively. A restitution order was imposed. After the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on two grounds: the judgment was against the weight of evidence and the sentence was excessively harsh. The Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, dismissing the first ground of appeal. However, acknowledging the harshness of the 20-year sentence and taking into consideration various factors including the restitution and appellant's time in custody, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence from 20 years to 12 years imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. The appeal against the sentence was therefore partly successful.
ADINYIRA (MRS.), JSC:-
The appellant, Owusu Banahene alongside with two other accused persons was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to steal and stealing building materials to the tune of GH¢ 2, 050,000.00 from Iron Birds Company , a company of his own uncle. On, 11 February 2011, he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years IHL and the other two accused persons were sentenced to terms of 10 and 15 years respectively. The trial Judge also made a restitution order for the appellant to restore to the complainant all properties and items acquired as proceeds of the dishonest appropriation.
An appeal to the Court of Appeal having failed, the appellant has appealed against this judgment dated 25 June 2013 on two grounds that the judgment was against the weight of evidence and the sentence harsh and excessive.
Ground One: Judgment is against the weight of evidence
We have given serious consideration to this ground of appeal and evaluated the evidence and have come to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence on record to support the charges against the appellant. We do not find any merit on this ground of appeal.
We will accordingly dismiss this ground of appeal and affirm the conviction of the appellant.
Ground Two: Sentence of 20 years IHL is excessive and harsh
As a principle, sentencing is a matter of discretion for the trial court and an appellate court will only interfere when in its opinion the sentence is manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case or that the sentence was wrong in principle. See Apaloo v The Republic [1975] 1GLR 156.
Factors that a court considers in determining the length of sentence include:
1. Any period of time spent in lawful custody in respect of that offence before the completion of his trial [Article 14 (4) of the Constitution,1992]
2. The intrinsic seriousness of the offence.
3. The degree of revulsion felt by law abiding citizens of the society for the particular crime.
4. The premeditation with which the crime was convicted.
5. The prevalence of the crime within the particular locality where the offence took place, or in the country generally.
6. The sudden increase in the incidence of the particular crime.
7. Mitigating circumstances such as the extreme youth, good character, remorse and reparation
8. Aggravating circumstances such the violence or the manner in which the crime was committed.
See the cases of Kwashie v The Republic [1971] GLR 488, Gligah & Atisa