THE REPUBLIC v. MICHAEL QUARTEY & DAWUDA
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Her Ladyship Angelina Mensah-Homiah (Mrs.)
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Michael Quartey was accused and found guilty of conspiracy to steal and stealing electrical cables from an uncompleted building. The court found that the prosecution met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A1's explanations were inconsistent with innocence and did not raise reasonable doubt. Sentenced to a fine or one-day imprisonment, the court concluded that A1's time in remand served as sufficient deterrent. Relevant case laws and statutes were cited to substantiate the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Michael Quartey, the first accused person herein, and one Dawuda (at large) are alleged to be partners of crime. Specifically, they have been charged with conspiracy to commit crime to wit stealing, contrary to sections 23(1) and 124 (1)of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29 and stealing, contrary to sections 124(1) of Act 29/60 as amended by paragraph 4 of NLDC 398 of 1969.
A2 escaped arrest. When A1 was arraigned before this court, the charges were read, interpreted and explained to him in Twi language. He pleaded not guilty to both counts.
The facts of the case as presented by the prosecutor are that both the complainant and A1 reside in Aburaso, Kumasi. On 01/06/2013. a witness in this case saw A1 and A2 in an uncompleted building of which the complainant is a caretaker. The witness who suspected the accused persons to be criminals, called other people's attention and raised an alarm. On sensing danger, the accused persons jumped over the wall and run away. The witness followed up to A1's house and met him. The father of A1 was informed about the incident and together with the witness, they went to the scene where a sack containing electrical wires and air condition pipes which had been removed from the building were found. A1 was subsequently arrested and during investigations, he mentioned A2 as his accomplice. The prosecution added that even though A1 pleaded not guilty, his father had a meeting with the complainant who gave the value of the items as GH¢10,400.00 of which A1's father paid GH¢ 3000.00.
The accused person has denied the charges leveled against him. This being a criminal case, the prosecution bears the onerous burden of proving the guilt of the accused person. The standard required is proof beyond reasonable doubt as spelt out under sections 11(2) 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323. The provisions are stated below:
Sec 11(2)
“ In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt"
Sec 13(1)
“In any civil or criminal action, the burden of persuasion as to he commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
A case in point is Oteng v The State ( 1966) GLR 352 . At page 355 of the report, the supreme Court, per Ollenu JSC