FRIMPONG BADU (APPELLANT) vs. THE REPUBLIC (RESPONDENT) [2010]DLCA7838

Date	2010-06-04
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL SUIT NO. H2/19/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA7838

APALOO JA (PRESIDING)

GYAESAYOR JA

ADDOH JA

NKRABEA EFFAH DARTEH FOR APPELLANT

MATHEW AMPONSAH CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA7838
																																						<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" >FRIMPONG BADU<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<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>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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">

CRIMINAL
APPEAL SUIT NO. H2/19/2009 &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: 4TH
MARCH, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NKRABEA
EFFAH DARTEH FOR APPELLANT<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">

MATHEW
AMPONSAH CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT<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">

APALOO
JA (PRESIDING), GYAESAYOR JA, ADDOH JA<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>APALOO
JA; This is an appeal from the High Court, Accra
where the appellant was on 25th September 2008 convicted on two
counts of offences related to narcotics.&nbsp;
The counts were (1) Attempted exportation of Narcotic Drug without
Licence issued by the Ministry of Health and (2) Possession of Narcotic Drug
without lawful Authority.&nbsp; Both counts
were contrary to Sections 1(1) and 2(1) respectively of the Narcotic Drugs (Control,
Enforcement and Sanctions) Law 1990 (PNDCL 236).&nbsp; The Court below convicted the appellant and
sentenced him to a term of 12 years IHL on each count to run concurrently.<o:p></o:p>In his notice of appeal the appellant raised two main
grounds of appeal viz that; <o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp; The Court erred in not considering the
defence of the &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;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; appellant and <o:p></o:p>&nbsp; 2.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Court erred by doing selective consideration of some facts &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;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ignoring others.”<o:p></o:p>Under sub items 2(a – d) appellant gave five factual
situations he claimed the Court failed to consider. These factual situations
were matters that emanated from the evidence led in the trial.<o:p></o:p>Briefly, the Appellant arrived at the Kotoka
International Airport on 10th July, 2006 at about 7:30 pm to board a
KLM flight to Amsterdam.&nbsp; During the
pre-departure formalities at the Airport, the appellant was picked at random by
an official of the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) on suspicion of possessing
narcotic drug and was taken to 37 Military Hospital for an X-ray
examination.&nbsp; The examination however
proved negative.&nbsp; Appellant thereafter
was taken back to the airport and in the offices of NACOB, a search was
conducted on the appellant which included his hand luggage.&nbsp; When a green hand bag which the appellant was
holding was searched, four (4) parcels of some whitish substance were found in
two false compartments in the bag.&nbsp; There
were two parcels of the substance in each compartment.&nbsp; A field test of the substance proved positive
for cocaine.&nbsp; For confirmation the
suspected cocaine was sent to the Ghana Standards Board for testing.&nbsp; The test proved positive for cocaine with a
net weight of 1656.8215 grams.&nbsp; It is
important to note that before the green hand bag was eventually sealed the
appellant requested that items in the nature of boxer pants, singlets and socks
in the bag be released to him for personal use.&nbsp;
On these facts the appellant was tried by the High Court which convicted
him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel for the appellant argued in his submissions filed
in this Court that, the lower Court erred seriously in not giving adequate
consideration to the evidence relating to the explanation of the accused.&nbsp;&nbsp; Counsel referred to section 13 of the
Evidence Act 1975 which explains the position of the law and the standard of
proof required for conviction in criminal trials.&nbsp; According to Counsel the term “reasonable doubt” as explained by Lord
Denning in the famous case of Miller vs.
Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 A11 ER 372
was not followed because according to Lord Denning.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>