Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
August 28, 2023
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Introduction
The accused person was arraigned before this court on 9 March 2023 to stand trial for unlawful entry contrary to section 152, stealing contrary to Section 124(1), and causing unlawful harm contrary to section 69 all of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29.
The accused person is alleged to have unlawfully entered the room of one Ernest Addo and Joyce Ofori, stole cash of six hundred Ghana Cedis only (Ghc600.00), and caused harm to Joyce Ofori with a cutlass.
The accused person's plea was taken, and he pleaded “not guilty’’ to the charges, thereby needing a full-scale trial. Article 19(2) (c) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, as amplified by sections 11(2) and 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), is germane on this point. The duty cast on the prosecution in that regard implies two (2) basic things must be looked at:
a) That the Prosecution’s evidence must not raise any doubt as to the commission of the crime.
b) Each element of the offence which the accused is charged with, which is a sine qua non and/or a condition precedent to securing a conviction, must be adequately proved.
See: Apaloo v. The Republic (1975) 1 GLR 156.
The statutory obligation of the prosecution becomes very strict particularly when the case of the prosecution is specifically denied by the accused person. See: sections 11(2) and 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323).
In the Supreme Court case of Richard Banousin v. The Republic (Criminal Appeal No. J3/2/2014 dated 18th March 2015), JVM Dotse, JSC expounded the law on the burden of proof in criminal matters as follows:
“It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in all criminal cases. A corollary to the above rule is based on the fact that an accused is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law. This the prosecution can only do if they proffer enough evidence to convince the Judge or jury that the accused is guilty of the ingredients of the offence charged. The prosecution has the burden to provide evidence to satisfy all the elements of the offence charged… The burden the prosecution has to prove is the accused person’s guilt and this is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest burden the law can impose and it is in contra distinction to the burden a plaintiff has in a civil case which is proof on a preponderance of the evidence.
What “beyond a reasonable doubt” means is that the prosecution must overcome
AI Generated Summary
Magistrate Her Worship Bernice Mawusi Kpodo convicted an accused on counts of unlawful entry, stealing, and causing unlawful harm following a nighttime intrusion into the home of Ernest Addo and his wife, Joyce Ofori. Addo discovered the accused hiding under their bed, and during a struggle in the corridor the accused drew a cutlass, injuring Ofori when she intervened. Neighbors helped and police recovered GHC 110; Ofori reported GHC 600 missing from under a pillow. Investigator D/PW/INSPR. Deborah Abekah visited the scene and tendered the accused’s investigation caution statement (Exhibit B), a cutlass photograph, and a damaged ZTE phone. The court emphasized the beyond reasonable doubt standard, found admissions of entry and theft in Exhibit B, rejected the intoxication claim and contradictory trial testimony, and held the prosecution proved all elements, leading to conviction on all counts.