REPUBLIC vs. GBADAGLO GODSWAY ALIAS JOE BOY, CUDJOE KEMEH ALIAS COMMANDO, EHIA FELIX AND ATSU (AT LARGE) [2009]DLHC7813

REPUBLIC vs. GBADAGLO GODSWAY ALIAS JOE BOY, CUDJOE KEMEH ALIAS COMMANDO, EHIA F... [2009]DLHC7813

Date	2009-03-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. ACC 21/20/08
Citation No.	[2009]DLHC7813

C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE

MR. PAUL A. ABARIGAHASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLC

MR. HOEYI COUNSELF FOR THE ACCUSED

[2009]DLHC7813
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>GBADAGLO GODSWAY ALIAS JOE BOY, CUDJOE KEMEH ALIAS COMMANDO,
EHIA FELIX AND ATSU (AT LARGE)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (FAST TRACK), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO.&nbsp; ACC 21/20/08&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
18TH MARCH, 2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
PAUL A. ABARIGAHASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLC<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
HOEYI, COUNSELF FOR THE ACCUSED<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

C.
J. HONYENUGA J.A. SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>The
accused persons were charged with two counts of Conspiracy to commit Crime to
wit Robbery contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of Act 29 as amended by Act 646
of 2003 and Robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29 amended by Act 646 of
2003 for having on the 29th day of September 2007, at about 12 a.m.
acted together to rob one Atuba Abu of Keyed Map Security Company of two tyres,
two rims and two tail lights valued GH¢950.00, the property of Glico Company Limited.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
4th accused is at large and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Hearing
commenced and the prosecution called four witnesses.&nbsp; At the close of the Prosecution’s case, Mr.
Hoeyi, Counsel for the first accused submitted a no case to answer by filing
same.&nbsp; It was when the proceedings which
were recorded were made available to me for consideration of the submission on
no case to answer that I realized that PW3’s evidence was not included.&nbsp; Upon inquiries from the Recorder, she stated
that PW3’s evidence was not captured by the recording device and therefore omitted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
was when this information was divulged to the court that I reversed my order to
rule on the submission of no case and granted leave with the consent of both
Lawyers; for the Prosecution to recall PW3 to testify afresh.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
upon several adjournments the Prosecution could not produce PW3 with the excuse
that he left for his hometown in the Upper East Region and all efforts to trace
have failed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Based
upon the above, Mr. Paul Abarigah, an Assistant State Attorney submitted that
since PW3 could not be traced, the Prosecution should be allowed to tender his
statement under section 118 (1) (B) (i) and (iii) of NRCD 232.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Hoeyi opposed this move of the Prosecution and submitted that the evidence of
PW3 be expunged from the record of proceedings.&nbsp;
He further submitted that to allow the statement of PW3 without it being
subjected to cross-examination would cause injustice since he was unavailable.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
I consider the various arguments put forth, it is worthy to consider whether
the evidence of PW3 ought to be expunged from the record.&nbsp; As already stated the evidence of PW3 could
not be recorded and therefore it is not available.&nbsp; The fact that PW3 testified but his evidence
is not available makes it imperative that I order as I hereby do that his
evidence if any should be expunged from the record.&nbsp; This certainly means that his evidence should
not be considered as part of the record of proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I
would now consider the other argument put forth.&nbsp; It is provided by section 116 (c) and (e) of
NRCD 323 as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “hearsay
evidence” is evidence of a statement made by a witness while testifying in the
action at the trial, offered to prove the truth of the matter stated;<o:p></o:p>(e)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
“unavailable as a witness” means that the declarant
is:<o:p></o:p>