Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
March 15, 2023
CIRCUIT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
A1, Patrick Nsiah Yawson and A2, Eric Abban together with three others were charged with:
Count 1: Conspiracy to commit crime namely Robbery contrary to section 23 (1) and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29); Count 2: Robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29, Count 4: Unlawful Damage contrary to section 172 (1) (b) as amended by Act 554 and Count 5: Unlawful Entry contrary to section 152 of Act 29.
A3, Patrick Coffie was charged with Abetment of Crime namely Robbery contrary to section 20 (1) and 149 of Act 29 on Count 3.
BRIEF FACTS AS PRESENTED BY PROSECUTION
It is the case of prosecution that on 10th August, 2020 at about 2am, A1, A2, A4, A5 and A6 armed with pump action gun, cutter, pinch bar and screw drivers attacked and tied the complainants with dusters, broke the padlocks, forcibly entered the shop and made away with the company’s safe containing an amount of GHC36, 544.90. That it was A1 who was armed with the cutter and A2 was the one driving the 4x4 Mitsubishi vehicle used for the robbery and that A3 provided the vehicle for the robbery. A4 was armed with pump action gun and A5 & A6 were also armed with screw drivers.
BURDEN OF PROOF & STANDARD OF PROOF
Clause 2(c) Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution states that a person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty or has pleaded guilty. It is therefore incumbent on prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons since they have pleaded not guilty to all the counts in the Charge Sheet. This requires prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond reasonable doubt.
This burden only shifts to the defence, when prosecution discharges its burden and produces cogent, sufficient and reliable evidence to satisfy the court that indeed the accused person has committed the crimes for which he is charged. Section 10(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) makes it mandatory for the prosecution to satisfy the burden cast on it to win the case.
EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE TRIAL
I will now evaluate the evidence adduced at the trial by prosecution in line with the established principles of law.
COUNT 1 & 2 – CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ROBBERY
Section 23(1) of Act 29 states that if two or more persons agree or act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a crime, whether with or without any previous concert or deliberation
AI Generated Summary
The Circuit Court, presided by H/H Adelaide Abui Keddey, tried criminal charges arising from a nighttime attack at East Cantonment Pharmacy at Mile 11. The prosecution alleged that A1 (Patrick Nsiah Yawson) wielded a cutter, A2 (Eric Abban) drove a 4x4 Mitsubishi, and A3 (Patrick Coffie) provided the vehicle, as masked assailants tied security guards and removed a safe containing GH¢36,544.90. Investigators PW1 and PW2 described crime-scene observations, while PW3 (security guard Issaka Ibrahim) could not identify any perpetrator due to masks; PW4 confirmed the vault’s contents. A1 raised an alibi corroborated by DW1 and DW2; A2 denied involvement and challenged the voluntariness of his statements; A3 denied vehicle involvement. The court emphasized the constitutional presumption of innocence, strict requirements for admitting confession statements under the Evidence Act, and the need for credible identification. Finding prosecution evidence insufficient and key statements noncompliant, the court held reasonable doubt and acquitted A1, A2, and A3 on all counts.