Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
The prosecution in this case alleges that accused person herein on 28th December, 2021
broke complainant’s window to his room, entered same and stole his bag with an
amount of GHC 1,500.00 and a single barrel gun. Consequently, accused person was on
the 15th February, 2022, arraigned the before this court on the following charge sheet;
“Count One: Unlawful entry: contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960
(Act 29)
Count Two: Stealing; contrary to section 124 of Criminal Offences Act, Act 29/60
Count Three: Stealing; contrary to section 124 of Criminal Offences Act, Act 29/60.”
Accused person pleaded not guilty to the charges after they were read and explained to
him in the Twi Language. The prosecution thus, assumed the burden of proving the
charges against accused person to the standard required by law which is based on the
presumption of innocence in favour of person charged with criminal offences as
enshrined in article 19 (2) (c) of Constitution, 1992.
The Supreme Court pronouncing on this same article in the case of Gligah and Atiso V
The Republic [2010] SCGLR, 870, also stated as follows; “under article 19 (2) (c) of the
1992 constitution, everyone charged with a criminal offence was presumed innocent
until the contrary was proved. In other words, whenever an accused person was
arraigned before any court in any criminal trial, it was the duty of the prosecution to
prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.”
The Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323), further formulates this standard of proof in section
11 (2) thus; “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 reasonable doubt.” And Denning J (as he then was) in the
case of Miller V Minister of Pensions [1974] 2 ALLER 372, defines proof beyond
reasonable doubt thus; “it need not reach certainty but it must carry a high degree of
probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a
doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities
to deflect the course of justice.”
The accused person on the other hand is required by law to raise only “reasonable
doubt” as to his guilt as provided by section 11 (3) of