RAPHAEL ADZINI v. THE REPUBLIC

APALOO JA; The Appellant was charged together with two others with conspiracy to commit Robbery contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act (Act 29/60) as amended by Act 646.

For the record it will be appropriate to state that in the Court below the first accused, convict Aaron Tay alias Elorm was alone charged with two counts of Robbery in the same trial.

At the end of the trial the three accused persons including the Appellant were convicted on the charge of conspiracy to commit Robbery and were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The Appellant was sentenced to 18 years IHL. Pursuant to this conviction and sentence the Appellant has appealed to this court on the following grounds;

“1. The Judgment and conviction of the Appellant are unreasonable having regard to the evidence before the Court.

2. The learned trial Judge erred in law by refusing to follow Arhin @ Paul Mall vrs The Republic [1995-96] 1 GLR 190 CA holding one, and in preferring to follow Agogrobisah vrs The Republic [1995-96] 1 GLR 557 ……. without giving reasons for his preference.

3. The trial Court erred in holding that the Appellant was particeps criminis.

4. That the learned trial Judge erred in holding contra. Behome Vrs The Republic [1979] GLR 112 HC that there was agreement between the Appellant and the perpetrators of the crime of Robbery.

5. The learned trial Judge erred in relying heavily on the written submission(s) of the prosecution when there was no evidence before the court that it had been served on the Appellant for his re-action thereto, thereby occasioning substantial miscarriage of justice.

6. The trial Court mis-recorded the actual evidence of the Appellant when it held the view that the Appellant had testified that he sold his motor bike to the named robber.

7. The trial Court’s view that the Appellant had said he sold his motor bike to the named robber was against the weight of evidence.

8. The trial Court erred grievously contra Lanquaye Vrs The Republic [1976] 1 GLR 1, holding 2, when it relied on the Appellant’s unsworn Police Investigation Statement to reject Appellant’s testimony in court on grounds of alleged inconsistency between his sworn testimony and his unsworn Police Investigation Statement.

9. The trial Court erred in law in relying heavily on the Appellant’s Police Investigation Statement when the Police did not give the Appellant sufficient time to engage a Lawyer contrary to his constitutional right