[2010]DLCA6692 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">CLIFFORD BRONI BEDIAKO<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%; border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in; mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">SUIT NO: H2/1/2010 DATE: 16<sup>TH</sup> DECEMBER 2010<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">MR. STEPHEN AHOR WITH HIM MR. MICHEAL OTENG FOR APPELLANT<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">G M QUAYE JA [PRESIDING], YAW APPAU JA, DENNIS D ADJEI JA<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt; border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none; padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%; border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">DENNIS D ADJEI JA <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The appellant stood trial at the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal, Accra on a charge of possession of narcotic drug without lawful authority contrary to Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs (Control, Enforcement and Sanction Law) PNDCL 236/1990. The Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offence and trial started on 24th May 2006. In the course of the trial the Appellant applied to change his plea and the plea was retaken but the explanation offered suggested that he was not guilty and the trial Tribunal continued with the hearing of the matter to its finality. The plea which was retaken in the middle of the trial has been raised as an issue by the Appellant and the legal issues involved would be addressed in due course. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Briefly stated the case of the prosecution was that the Appellant, a Ghanaian who was pursuing a Masters programme in London Metropolitan University was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport on 14th July 2005 when he was scheduled to travel to London on board a KLM Flight. The Appellant was suspected of possessing narcotic drug by the officer from the Narcotic Control Unit who was on duty at the Kotoka International Airport. The Appellant was taken to the 37 Military Hospital where an X-ray examination revealed that he had foreign material in his stomach. The Appellant expelled 36 whitish pellets under the supervision of the Narcotics Control Unit officials. The forensic examination by the Ghana Standards Board revealed that the foreign substance which was hidden in the Appellant’s stomach was cocaine with a percentage purity of 71.4% with total gross weight of 320 grams. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The Appellant admitted having swallowed the 36 pellets of foreign material into his stomach but said that the substance was diamond and not cocaine. The main issues for determination before the tribunal were two folds namely: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">i.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Whether or not the substance found in the stomach of the Appellant which was expelled under the supervision of the personnel of the Narcotics Control Board was either cocaine or diamond and <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">ii.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Whether or not the Appellant knew that the substance he swallowed was diamond and not cocaine. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The trial Tribunal rejected the defence put up by the Appellant as an attempt to throw dust into the eyes of the court. The Court convicted and sentenced him to twelve years imprisonment in hard labour. On 14th March 2008 the Appellant initially filed an appeal against sentence. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">He subsequently applied to this Court to grant him leave to amend his Notice of Appeal to enable him appeal against both conviction and sentence and the leave was granted on 10th December 2008. On 19th December 2008 the Appellant filed his petition of Appeal (Notice of Appeal) and on the issue of conviction, he raised eight (8) grounds and on the sentencing raised three (3) grounds. The frivolity of some of the grounds of appeal would be addressed in the course of this judgment. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The eight grounds of appeal against the conviction are as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">1. The Tribunal erred in convicting the Appellant without finding that the Appellant knew that cocaine was the substance that he had been made to swallow. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">2. The Tribunal erred in considering that because the Appellant had the opportunity to know what he was being asked to swallow that was enough basis for a conviction. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">3. Having entered the plea of not guilty for the accused upon hearing the explanation given by the Appellant when he sought to change his plea from "Not Guilty" to "Not Guilty with explanation" the Tribunal erred in failing to consider the explanation offered by the Appellant and determining whether it created a doubt in respect of the case of the prosecution. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">4. The Tribunal erred in failing to realize that the prosecution did not tender the X-ray which was the material part of their case. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">5. The Tribunal erred in not considering the case of the defence. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">6. The Tribunal erred in convicting the Appellant where the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.<o:p><