RICHMOND KWABLA DZANGBATEY v. THE REPUBLIC
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ADJEI, JA – PRESIDING
- CECILIA H. SOWAH, JA
- HENRY KWOFIE, JA
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appeal against a murder conviction where the appellant claimed self-defense. The Court of Appeal examined the trial judge's summing up to the jury, the reasonableness of the verdict, and the adequacy of the consideration given to the appellant's defense. The court found that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury, had properly addressed the defenses of self-defense and provocation, and that the verdict was reasonable based on the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original conviction. The case highlights important principles regarding the role of appellate courts in reviewing jury decisions and the importance of proper jury direction in criminal trials.
ADJEI J.A:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer death on 7th March, 2004 by the High Court Koforidua. Pursuant to the leave granted by this Court to the appellant to file an appeal against conviction out of time, the appellant filed a Petition of appeal against his conviction on 3rd February, 2014.
The appellant was charged with two offences, namely murder and use of offensive weapon contrary to sections 46 and 70 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) respectively. The appellant killed one Christiana Apafo whom he was in relationship with on 4th March, 1995 with a bottle. The appellant did not deny killing the late Christiana Apafo but his case was that the deceased pulled his genital organs, bit him and further inflicted tooth-bite injuries on his penis. He therefore killed her as a self-defence. The jurors found the appellant guilty of murder and was accordingly convicted for murder.
The appellant dissatisfied with his conviction raised four grounds of appeal in his Petition of appeal. The ground of appeal are as follows:
(a) The trial Judge misdirected himself in his summing up to the Jury.
(b) The trial Judge misdirected the Jury in his summing up.
(c) The verdict of the jury is unreasonable in the light of the evidence before it and
(d) The trial Judge erred when he failed to consider the defence of the Appellant adequately”.
The appellant who was self-represented informed the Court that he would rely on his grounds of appeal. The Attorney General was also ordered to respond to the grounds of appeal if she was minded to do but she did not file any process. Grounds (a) and (b) of the Petition of appeal are almost the same and we shall address both of them together.
The duty of a Judge in the Summing up is to review the salient points of the evidence proffered in the case and instruct the Jury on the law with reference to the evidence. The Judge is required to state the facts and points out the weaknesses and strengths embedded in them. A Judge is neither to misdirect the Jury on the evidence and the law nor to misdirect by non-direction on the evidence and the law. Additionally, a judge in his summing up should not leave out salient evidence and laws which if properly discussed may persuade the decision of the Jurors. The effect of non-direction, or misdirection or non-direction by misdirection may occasion miscarriage of justice and therefore impacting positively or negatively on the appeal.
A misdirection or n