PROSPER AMESHINU (APPELLANT) vs. THE REPUBLIC (RESPONDENT) [2010]DLCA7470

Date	2010-07-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO. H2/18/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA7470

APALOO JA (PRESIDING)

AQUAYE JA

HONYENUGA JA

PRINCE F. NII ASHIE NEEQUAYE FOR APPELLANT.

EVELYN D KEELSON SNR STATE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA7470
																																						<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" >PROSPER AMESHINU<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL SUIT NO. H2/18/2010 &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:&nbsp;
22ND JULY, 2010<o:p></o: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:2.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:2.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:2.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">PRINCE
F. NII ASHIE NEEQUAYE FOR APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:2.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">EVELYN
D KEELSON SNR STATE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt;padding-bottom:1.0pt;mso-padding-bottom-alt:1.0pt;
border-bottom:1.5pt solid windowtext;mso-border-bottom-alt:1.5pt solid windowtext">CORAM:&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;APALOO JA (PRESIDING) ,AQUAYE JA, AND HONYENUGA JA<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt;padding-top:1.0pt;mso-padding-top-alt:0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>APALOO,
JA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
this appeal the appellant Prosper Ameshinu is seeking the reversal of his
conviction by the High Court, Fast Track Division dated 22nd day of August
2006. The High Court upon conviction, sentenced the appellant to 60 years IHL
on each of the two counts upon which he was charged. Both sentences were to run
concurrently.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The appellant had been charged with the
offences of (1) conspiracy to commit robbery and (2) robbery contrary to
section 23 (1) and 149 of the criminal offences Act, Act 29 as amended. <o:p></o:p>Briefly
stated, the case of the prosecution was that on the night of 21/9/03 at about
10:40 pm the complainant, Mr. Cox Tamakloe a journalist with Joy FM in Accra
was driving his Ford Escort Saloon Car registered as number GR 6902 T from
Accra towards Community 10, Tema. On a section of the road, he was overtaken by
a Taxi Cab which suddenly blocked the road thereby preventing him from moving
any further. He tried to reverse his car but the accused got down from the taxi
and came to his car and pointed a gun at one side of his head. Another person
quickly got into the backseat of the complainant’s car, put an object to his
back and ordered him to surrender everything on him. The accused moved from the
window and came to sit in the front seat of the complainant’s car and
threatened to cause harm to him if he did not co-operate. The complainant at
the time had on him unspecified amount of money which he gave to the accused.
They then ordered him to drive on. After about 150 yards from, the scene, they
ordered him out of the vehicle and they drove the vehicle away. The complainant
reported the matter to the Police.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;About a week after the incident the Police had
information that a vehicle suspected to have been stolen was being dismantled
at Nii Boye Town. The Police mounted an operation at a house at Nii Boye Town,
retrieved the almost dismantled vehicle and arrested the appellant and another
man who were found in the house. The complainant identified the accused as one
of the robbers, specifically the one who pointed the gun to his head and also
sat in the front seat of the vehicle. The appellant was therefore charged with
the offences after police investigations.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The appellant by his petition of appeal filed
three main grounds against conviction and the third against sentence. The
grounds of appeal will be reproduced herein to assist in the determination of
the appeal. <o:p></o:p>"1That the conviction
is wrong in law and is against the weight of evidence adduced before the Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2 That the sentence is harsh and excessive. <o:p></o:p>3 [And by way of additional
ground]; That the learned trial Judge erred in law, relying solely on the
identification parade evidence to convict the accused, when it was patently
clear that the strict and mandatory procedure governing identification parades
were not complied with and thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice"<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The appellant’s statement in support of this
appeal argued the additional ground forcefully. Counsel was of the view that
the Police did not follow the rules contained in Police Standing Order 195
published in Chapter 3 of Proof A.N.E. Amissah’s Criminal Procedure in Ghana.
Counsel’s arguments were a complete attack on the method adopted by the police
in identifying the appellant and a challenge which went to the trial judge’s
assessment of the evidence led in court in respect of the identification of the
appellant. In the judgment the trial judge noted that; <o:p></o:p>"As indicated earlier,
the charge facing the accused is premised essentially in the identification of
the accused by the complainant and also the fact that the stolen veh</main>