REPUBLIC v. GODWIN HOVEY BAHEY

Upon leave of the Court dated 31 January 2023, and pursuant to the Criminal &

Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30) s. 326, the appellant filed the notice of

petition/appeal a week later 9 Feb. 2023. The appeal is not against his conviction

for the charges of unlawful entry, stealing, and causing unlawful damage contrary

to the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) i.e. sections 152, 124(1) and 172(b)

respectively but rather against the respective sentences of “3 years, 2 years, and 2

years IHL [to run] consecutively” (Emphasis added).

The Appellant is unrepresented by counsel. His appeal processes were put

together by a Prison Warden Officer. Strictly on the face of the papers, the appeal

is against the sentence that he claims the court directed to run consecutively, and

also for mitigation thereof on grounds that he is “a first-time offender; handed 3

warrants out of two dockets, [and that] he had served 3 and half of the 7 years

imposed by the trial judge”.

The facts redolent on the appeal papers before me are that the appellant has had

two previous convictions besides his conviction in this present suit of the same

charges. The other two previous cases just like this present case were before the

Keta Circuit Court consolidated as CC 103/2019 on the same charges of unlawful

entry, stealing, and causing unlawful damage contrary to law.

Finding the appellant guilty after a full trial, and convicting him of the three

counts, this is what the learned trial judge wrote: “[a] accused has been convicted

in two cases but he is yet to commence serving the sentence”. (Emphasis added).

Pleading leniency after his conviction by the trial court prior to the court’s

sentence, the appellant stated that his family has paid the victim complainant for

the loss of the stolen items. This is what the learned trial judge wrote in his

sentence:

The accused’s plea of mitigation and the intervention by his family have

been taken into consideration as mitigating sentence. Prosecution’s

representation of the two convictions against the accused for the same

offence … which the accused is yet to be sent to prison is also considered.

The court in the circumstances sentences the accused to two years

imprisonment IHL on each count. Sentence to run concurrently.

(Emphasis added).

In his appeal papers, the appellant confirms the court’s finding of his two previous

convictions. In fact, according to the appellant:

I was first sentenced on 17th Jun