JUDGMENT ON CRIMINAL APPEAL
This a criminal appeal which upon leave of the Court dated 11 October 2022, the
appellant filed the notice thereof a day thereafter, that is, 12 October 2022. The
appeal is just for the mitigation of the 50-year sentence that the Circuit Cout,
Kpando on 21 November 2019 presided then by His Honour Nana Brew, Esq.
passed on the appellant upon his conviction of having committed the offence of
conspiracy and abetment of robbery contrary to law – the Criminal Offences Act,
1960 (Act 29) sections 23(1) and 149, and 20(1).
In the notice of appeal, the grounds for the appeal for the mitigation of the 50 years
sentence are:
1 That I am a first-time offender.
2 That the 50 years sentence is very harsh and excessive.
3 That I did not actively take part in the said robbery.
The appellant does not seem to be appealing against his conviction but rather the
50-year sentence. The State, represented by the learned Assistant State Attorney
Ms Nana Konadu Frempong is not opposed to the appeal, indeed suggesting in
the conclusion of her written submission that “for the reasons stated above [w]e
humbly submit that the Appellant’s conviction should be quashed … and be
discharged …”
Whilst the appellant is seeking mitigation of the 50-year sentence, indeed
reduction of that sentence, the learned state attorney is calling upon the court for
the conviction to be set aside. I considered the grounds of the learned state attorney
in her submission for the setting aside of the conviction of the appellant. I have
also, indeed compelled to look and read critically the judgment of the learned trial
circuit court judge, the basic record I find on the appeal record. I found clearly that
the learned state attorney counsel is correct in her submission. Sadly, I found that
there was no legitimate basis in law for the learned trial judge in finding that the
prosecution has discharged proof of the charge against the appellant in accordance
with law.
The facts of the case, simply are that three accused persons including the appellant
with a gun robbed the complainant of his motorbike, money, and mobile phone
and also inflicted body injuries on the complainant during the commission of the
offence.
As argued by the learned state counsel, in a criminal trial the prosecution must
prove ingredients that it was the accused and no one else that committed the
offence, in this instance robbery to secure a conviction of robbery. Indeed for
