YAKUBU SALIFU v. THE REPUBLIC
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal was brought against the sentence of 270 days imprisonment with hard labour for the offence of stealing. The appellant argued that the sentence was too harsh given his circumstances as a first-time offender, family man, and sole breadwinner. The appellate court found that the trial magistrate did not consider all mitigating factors and allowed the appeal, setting aside the original sentence and imposing a fine of GH 100 penalty units or in default two months imprisonment with hard labour.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal against the Judgment of the District Magistrate, Nyinahin, Ashanti Region. The appellant was arraigned before the Nyinahin Distrcit Court on a charge of stealing, contrary to section 124(1) of the Crminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29.
On his maiden appearance before the court, his plea was not taken because the prosecution indicated to the Magistrate that investigations were ongoing and did not want any interference with their investigations. Their request was accepted by the court and the appellant was kept in police custody.
Subsequently, his plea was taken and he pleaded guilty. The trial Magistrate proceeded to convict and sentence him to 270 days imprisonment with hard labour. It is against this sentence that the instant appeal has been brought.
The facts which led to the conviction and sentence are as follows: The Appellant is a caretaker to one Alhaf Issufu, who rents out excavators. On 13/09/2015, a customer rented or hired an excavator from the Appellant after the two had negotiated and agreed on GH¢16,000.00. The Appellant collected the money from the hirer, but failed to account for same to his master. Following a report made to the police, the appellant was arrested.
GROUND OF APPEAL
The sentence is too harsh taking the circumstances of the case into consideration.
In arguing the appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Appellant is a first and young offender, aged 41 years; he has a family with three children and is the sole bread winner of the family. Continuing, Counsel argued that the incarceration of the Appellant will jeopardize the maintenance of his family and the future of the children. Concluding, counsel submitted that the Appellant had already refunded the money at the time of his conviction and sentence, and prayed the court to spare him the ordeal of custodial sentence.
The record of proceedings, which also contained the petition and ground of appeal, were served on the Chief State Attorney, Kumasi on 20/10/2015 together with a hearing notice. However, at the time of hearing the appeal, the Republic was not represented, an indication that they were not contesting the Appeal.
The grounds upon which an appellate court can interfere with the sentence given by the court below was adequately discussed in the case of APALOOV THE REPUBLIC (1975) 1 GLR 156, CA. The Court of Appeal held thus (holding 11):
The principles upon which the court would act on an appeal against sentence were