THE REPUBLIC v. VICTOR AFRIFA
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ADJEI, JA – PRESIDING
- CECILIA H. SOWAH, JA
- J. B. BENSON, J
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence for using an offensive weapon, appealed on several grounds, including inadequate jury direction and excessive sentencing. The High Court reviewed the appeal, focusing on the trial judge’s summing up, directions on self-defense, and the adequacy of the sentence. The court found no miscarriages of justice or misdirections, upheld the conviction, and maintained the eight-year sentence. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
ADJEI J.A:
The Appellant dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence by the High Court Koforidua filed an appeal against both conviction and sentence on 11th April, 2013. The appellant was convicted for the offence of use of offensive weapon contrary to Section 70 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The jury panel returned an unanimous verdict of guilty after which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to 8 years I.H.L.
The petition of appeal contained two main grounds of appeal namely;
“1. That the trial High Court Judge did not adequately direct the jury on the evidence and that occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
2. The sentence is harsh and excessive having regard to the circumstances of the case”.
The appellant indicated in his petition of appeal that he would file additional grounds of appeal and he did file three (3) additional grounds of appeal on 18th December, 2013. The additional grounds of appeal are as follows:
“1. The trial High Court Judge misdirected the jury, which misdirection occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice to the appellant;
Particulars of misdirection
a. His Lordship the High Court Judge misdirected the jury by stating that for defence of self-defence, to avail the appellant, the jury have to consider degree of injuries inflicted on the victim, contrary to position of the law that it is whether the act was done in self-defence, not whether the act went farther than was necessary in self-defence;
b. His Lordship the High Court Judge misdirected the jury in the summing-up that it is only when appellant’s life was in danger that he could use force to defend himself;
c. His Lordship the High Court Judge further misdirected the jury in the summing-up by the use of the following phraseology which created prejudice in the minds of the jury, thereby prejudging the case in favour of the prosecution as against the appellant:
(i) The victim was emphatic that he was not armed;
(ii) The victim was emphatic that he went to the house alone and unarmed; and
(iii) As you can see the answer from the accused punches a lot of holes in his story that the victim (PW1) came to the house armed with a cutlass.
2. The trial judge further misdirected the jury by non-direction and which non-direction occasioned substantial miscarriage of justice to the appellant;
Particulars of non-direction
(a) His Lordship the High Court Judge made a finding of fact that the cutlass was offensive weapon used by appellant