DOE vs THE REPUBLIC [2002]DLCA124

Date	2002-04-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA124

AFREH JA

AKOTO-BAMFO JA

AMONOO-MONNEY JA

WILLIAM ODURO FOR THE APPELLANT.

VEGBA ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC.

[2002]DLCA124
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">DOE<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 32<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date: 13 APRIL 2002<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:WILLIAM ODURO
FOR THE APPELLANT.VEGBA,
ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE REPUBLIC.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:AFREH,
AKOTO-BAMFO AND AMONOO-MONNEY JJA___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Akoto-Bamfo JA.
<o:p></o:p>Delivered the judgment of the court at the invitation of Afreh JA.
The appellant and one other person who were both employees at the Kintampo
branch of the Ghana Commercial Bank were arraigned before the Brong Ahafo
Regional Tribunal on charges of conspiracy to commit a crime, falsification of
accounts and stealing contrary to sections 23(1), 140 and 124 respectively of
the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29).<o:p></o:p>In a nutshell, the prosecution’s case was that the appellant and
the other person siphoned various sums of money from the bank by falsifying the
books, withdrawing moneys from the accounts of the bank’s customers and
tampering with the records of the customers in the ledger books. By these
means, they withdrew a total sum of ¢20,500,000 from the bank. Of this amount,
the appellant was charged and convicted on three counts of conspiracy to steal,
falsification of accounts and stealing ¢13,266.960. He was admitted to bail
after conviction. About one year after the conviction, when he had refunded
¢1.million out of the subject-matter of the charge, he was sentenced to five
years imprisonment with hard labour on count 1; one year with hard labour on
count 2 and seven years with hard labour on count 3. The learned tribunal
chairman ordered the sentences on counts 1 and 3 to run concurrently and
“cumulatively” with count 2.<o:p></o:p>It is against the conviction and sentences that the appellant
appealed to this court. Originally, four grounds of appeal were filed, namely:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(1) That the appellant did not appreciate the charges against
him. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) That the facts of the case do not support the charges
preferred against the appellant. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3) That the trial judge erred when he convicted and sentenced the
appellant for conspiracy to steal when no evidence was led to substantiate the
charge of conspiracy. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(4) That the total sentence of eight years with hard labour was
harsh taking into account the nature of the case.”<o:p></o:p>Subsequently, an additional ground was filed, namely that the
tribunal erred when it convicted and sentenced the appellant when the facts of
the case had not been given. It does appear to me that learned counsel
abandoned grounds (1) and (2) of the original grounds and therefore argued the
additional ground subsequently filed together with grounds (3) and (4) of the
original grounds.<o:p></o:p>Before considering the issues raised in the appeal, I deem it
necessary to comment on the procedure adopted by the learned tribunal chairman.
On 10 February 1998, three persons were put before the regional tribunal on
charges of conspiracy to steal, falsification of accounts and stealing. The
charge sheet was numbered 57/98; they pleaded to the charge after which the
prosecutor narrated the facts on which the prosecution was grounded. On 10 March
1998, it appears the tribunal chairman purported to consolidate two charge
sheets before him, for the record of proceedings has the following:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Court Case No 57/98 and 84/98. <o:p></o:p>