THE REPUBLIC v. KYEREMEH HARRISON
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves Kyeremeh Harrison and an accomplice, Seidu, who conspired to rob a taxi driver at gunpoint. The trial centered on whether A1 and Seidu's actions met the definitions of conspiracy and robbery under the Criminal Offences Act. Key witnesses gave testimonies, strengthening the prosecution's case. The accused was found guilty based on corroborated evidence and his own admissions in investigation statements. The court emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence and the high burden of proof in criminal cases. A1 was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for each count, sentences to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT
"... Justice is inverted when those engines of the law, instead of pinching vicious men, keep honest ones in awe.." Daniel Defoe (1889).
It appears to me that the prosecution in this case are desirous of securing the conviction of the accused person who stand charged with the offences of conspiracy to commit crime, to wit robbery, and robbery, contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of The Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29. The particulars of the offences are that Kyeremeh Harrison ( A1) and one Seidu ( at large) agreed and acted together to rob one Francis Nantwi of his Pontiac Vibe Taxi cab with registration number AW 8489- 14 on 23/11/2014.
A1 pleaded not guilty to these charges, hence, the instant trial. The facts on which the prosecution rely are that on 23/11/2014 at about 1:30pm, the complainant was in charge Pontiac Vibe with registration number AW 8489- 14 at Adum, Kumasi. The accused persons hired his services to take them to Abrakaso, near Agona, to pick up a herbalist to treat his sick mother in Kumasi. On their return journey to Kumasi, A1 suddenly pulled the handbrake of the taxi cab and it stopped. He pulled a pistol and pointed it at the driver and A2 also pulled a knife and asked the driver whether he wanted to live or die. These two accused persons allegedly pulled the complainant from the vehicle and sped off with the car towards Agona direction with the complainant's cell phones, wallet, driver's licence and cash the sum of GHS 210.00. At Abrakaso junction, they were involved in an accident. In the process, A1 was arrested but A2 managed to escape with the pistol. A1 admitted the offence in his investigation cautioned statement and mentioned A2 as his accomplice.
At this juncture, the prosecution are required to discharge the burden of proof placed on them by law. That is, proof beyond reasonable doubt as provided under sections 11(2) and 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 N.R.C.D. 323. This basic requirement of proof in criminal cases was expounded by Ollenu JSC in Oteng v The State (1966) GLR 352 . At page 355 of the report, his Lordship stated:
... the citizen too is entitled to protection against the state and that our law is that a person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt as distinct from fanciful doubt".
The ingredients of these offences can be gathered from the sections 23(1) and 150 of Act 29/60 thus:
Section 23 (1):
“Where two or more persons agree to act