Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
The Accused persons were arraigned before this Court on May 20, 2022 for the offences
of Unlawful entry, Conspiracy to commit crime to wit stealing, stealing, conspiracy to
commit crime to wit causing unlawful damage and causing unlawful damage Contrary
to Sections 152, 23(1) and 124(1), 124(1), 23(1) and 172 of The Criminal and Other
Offences Act, 1960 Act 29.
The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge preferred against them for which
reason the prosecution assumed the burden of proof and must prove the charges
against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with;
Section 11(2) of the Evidence Act 1975 NRCD 323 states;
“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 will find the existence of the facts beyond reasonable doubt.”
Further, Section 13(1) of NRCD 323 provides that the standard of proof is nothing less
than proof beyond reasonable doubt no matter the offence charged.
See the case of Ampabeng Vrs Republic [1977] 2 GLR 171 CA
The prosecution in order to discharge the burden placed upon them called five
witnesses and tendered twenty-one exhibits in evidence.
THE PROSECUTION CASE
The summary of prosecution case is that a case PW1 tendered in their witness
statements in evidence.
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW
At the close of case of prosecution, Learned Counsel for the accused persons raised
submission of no case per Section 173 of Act 30/60. Counsel contents that prosecution’s
case has failed to prove the salient ingredients of the offences and that accused must be
acquitted and discharged in compliance with Section 173 of Act 30 of 1960 as a case has
not been made out sufficiently against them to require them to make a defence. The
submission of no case is upheld as the court is of the view that prosecution’s case is so
discredited under cross examination that it cannot be relied on to ground a prima facie
case against accused persons sufficiently to require them to make a defence and that the
accused persons be acquitted and discharged with respect to all the charges. These are
my reasons:
Section 152 of Act 29/60 provides for the offence of unlawful entry as follows:
“whoever unlawfully enters any building with the intention of committing a crime
therein shall be guilty of second