REPUBLIC v. ELVIS OPOKU KYEI @ AZOR
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ADJEI, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- SOWAH, J.A.
- KWOFIE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Evidence Law
- Appellate Procedure
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant was convicted of robbery and conspiracy. PW1 identified him a month after the robbery. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 30 years. On appeal, the court found the identification by PW1 was insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was quashed, and the appellant was acquitted and discharged.
SOWAH, J.A:
The appellant was convicted by the High Court, Koforidua on 21st July 2010 on charges of Conspiracy to commit crime and Robbery contrary to section 23(1) and section 149 respectively of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29.
The brief facts of the case are that on 10th June 2008 five masked armed men attacked a house and robbed the inmates. There was no arrest that night but one of the victims [PW1] said that she could identify one of the robbers who had removed his mask during the robbery. About a month after the robbery, the appellant went to a shop to make a purchase. PW1 who was a cashier at the store saw the appellant, alleged that she recognized him, and informed PW3 who caused his arrest. The appellant was charged with four others at large. He pleaded ‘not guilty’, was tried, convicted and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment on each count to run concurrently
Aggrieved with his conviction and sentence, the appellant filed a petition of appeal on 28th July 2010 with six grounds of appeal. An additional ground of appeal was filed pursuant to leave granted by this court on 10th March 2015. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. The judgment of the court cannot be supported with the evidence adduced at the court.
2. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the number of the people involved in the robbery does not deserve consideration.
3. The learned trial Judge fell into serious error when he held that apart from PW1 observing the accused, her account that she told the other victims whilst waiting to be rescued and her repetition of same to the police that same night and her statement to the police that she saw the accused person, shows that she was candid in what she said about observing the accused person.
4. The learned trial Judge having admitted that it is not normal for a robber to remove his mask which will expose him to the risk of being identified, erred when he drew a conclusion that the evidence of PW1 that the accused person removed his mask was a mistake on the part of the accused.
5. Having regard to the evidence adduce at the trial, the learned trial Judge was wrong in his conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused person to the degree of certainty required by law.
6. The conviction is wrong in law.
7. The 30 years jail sentence is unduly harsh, excessive, and without due regard to the absence of a