PATRICIA ASIEDUAA v. THE REPUBLIC

On 5th July, 2025, the Appellant herein was convicted by the Circuit Court, Accra on a count of Charlatanic Advertisement in Newspapers contrary to section 137 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The Appellant was also convicted of two (2) counts of Defrauding by False Pretences contrary to section 131 (1) of the same Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960, (Act 29) and she was subsequently and consequently sentenced to a fine of 25 penalty units or in default 30 days imprisonment on count 1 and 15 years imprisonment in hard labour (15 years IHL), on counts 2 and 3, with all sentences to run concurrently, that is to say, the Appellant was to serve 15 years IHL in all.

[1.1.] Following the conviction and sentence, the Appellant immediately, (that is within two days after her conviction and sentence), launched the present appeal against both her conviction as well as the sentences.

[1.2.] The grounds of appeal were stated as follows;

(i) The conviction and sentence should be set aside as the judgement is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence on record.

(ii) The whole trial is wrongful in law;

Particulars of error of law;

(a)The trial judge denied the Petitioner (sic), a fair trial by calling upon her to prove her innocence when the prosecution had led no or sufficient evidence contrary to article 19 (2) of the 1992 Constitution,

(b) The trial judge demonstrated manifest bias and personal animosity towards the Petitioner (sic), by persistently engaging in confrontations, harassment and intimidation of the accused's (sic), lawyers in open court thereby denying her adequate and effective representation.

(iii) The sentence of fifteen (15) years imprisonment IHL is harsh and excessive taking into consideration the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Additional grounds of appeal to be filed upon the receipt of the judgement.

[1.3.] Upon the receipt of the Record of Appeal, (hereafter called the 'ROA'), this court then presided over by me, found that the ROA was incomplete as some of the pages were missing thereby prompting the court to remit the ROA to the court below for same to be updated.

[1.4.] The court took the decision to remit the ROA to the court below to be updated because it was mindful of the legal effect of a lost, missing, destroyed or an incomplete ROA through no fault of an appellant as held