Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
SOWAH, J.A.
The facts upon which the appellant was arraigned before the trial court were as follows:
“The accused Raymond Wiredu Yeboah is a Belgium of Ghanaian origin but residence [sic] in UK. On 28th June 2008 at about 8.30 pm the accused arrived at Kotoka International Airport to board a KLM flight to Amsterdam. While going through pre-boarding formalities, he was suspected by operatives of NACOB on duty of carrying narcotic drugs in his stomach. When accused was interrogated, he confessed to having swallowed narcotic substances. He was arrested put under observation where he expelled 75 pellets of whitish substances suspected to be cocaine. During the interrogation he stated that he had received the drugs from one Jeffery, a Ghanaian to be delivered to unnamed person in Amsterdam for a fee of 3,800 Euros. He has however failed to assist the police arresting the said Jeffery who gave him the drugs. The exhibits were sent to Ghana Standard Board for analysis and it tested positive for cocaine.”
On these facts the appellant was charged on two counts with Attempted Exportation of Narcotic Drugs contrary to section 1(1) and section 56(a) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990 (PNDCL 236) and Possession of Narcotic Drugs, contrary to section 2(1) of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990 (PNDCL 236).
He pled not guilty when he was first arraigned on 7th February 2012 but subsequently on 2nd March 2012 whilst represented by counsel, he changed his plea to guilty on both counts and he was duly convicted on his own plea. His counsel made a statement in mitigation, reminding the court that the incident had happened in 2008. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.
The appellant filed the notice of appeal on 18th December 2012 against the whole decision of the court with the following two grounds of appeal:
The trial judge erred when he convicted the appellant for possession
The trial judge erred when he did not consider the period that the appellant has spent in lawful custody.
In his written submissions in respect of the first ground of appeal, the appellants counsel contends that on the facts of the case, the appellant was hired to deliver the drugs to a recipient in Amsterdam; therefore the trial judge erred in convicting him of “possession” instead of “supply”.
Although not one of the stated