SOLOMON DUODO @ALHAJI v. THE REPUBLIC
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARFUL SAU J.A. (PRESIDING)
- A. M. DORDZIE, JA
- L. L. MENSAH, JA
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant and two others were charged, tried, and convicted of conspiracy to rob and robbery, receiving 65-year sentences for each count to run concurrently. On appeal, the appellant argued errors in the trial court's decision, including lack of evidence for conspiracy and failure to meet the standard of proof. The appellate court found no evidence linking the appellant to the conspiracy or robbery but found sufficient evidence of dishonestly receiving stolen goods. Consequently, the court vacated the original conviction and instead sentenced the appellant to 10 years of imprisonment for dishonestly receiving the stolen phone, effective from February 27, 2009.
AGNES M. DORDZIE JA:-
FACTS:
The appellant herein with two other persons were charged with:
1. Conspiracy to rob contrary to Sections 23 and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, (Act 29)
2. Robbery, contrary to Section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act29)
They were tried by the High Court (Fast Track Division); convicted on all the charges and were sentenced to 65 years imprisonment (IHL) each on each count; the sentence was to run concurrently in each case.
The appellant was dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence and therefore appealed to this court.
Grounds of Appeal:
Pursuant to leave granted the appellant to file a notice of appeal out of time, the following grounds of appeal were filed on his behalf on the 24th of December 2014:
1. The trial judge erred in convicting the appellant on the charge of conspiracy when the evidence on record did not support the charge of conspiracy.
2. The trial judge erred when he failed to determine whether, with regard to the evidence of the prosecution before the trial court, the requisite standard of proof had been satisfied.
3. The trial judge erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant when the prosecution had not proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The trial court erred when it failed to evaluate the evidence against the appellant in accordance with the law regarding circumstantial evidence.
5. The sentence imposed on the appellant is too harsh and excessive under the circumstances of the case.
In arguing the appeal counsel for the appellant made no submission in respect of the 5th ground of appeal. In fact ground 5 of the grounds of appeal had not been argued at all. In the circumstances, it is deemed that the ground of appeal on the sentence had been abandoned. The said ground is hereby struck out as abandoned.
Though each of the remaining grounds of appeal emphasized error on the part of the trial judge, counsel for the appellant in his submission did not argue these grounds in any order; his submissions seem to lump together all the grounds. I would therefore summarize his submissions as it had been presented.
It was argued by counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has the duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a prior agreement between/ among the conspirators or that the appellant acted overtly with the others with a common purpose to commit the offences he had been convicted of.
Counsel further submitted relying on the case of Stat