HEYNE FRANK vs. THE REPUBLIC [2010]DLCA8922

Date	2010-11-18
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL SUIT NO. H2/25/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA8922

APALOO JA (PRESIDING)

MARIAMA OWUSU JA

DUOSE JA

[2010]DLCA8922
																																						<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" >HEYNE FRANK<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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><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">

CRIMINAL APPEAL SUIT
NO. H2/25/2010&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;DATE: 18TH
NOVEMBER 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;APALOO JA (PRESIDING), MARIAMA OWUSU JA, DUOSE
JA<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:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>APALOO,
JA:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the decision of the Greater Accra Regional
Tribunal dated 15th January 2010.&nbsp;
The appellant was convicted on two counts of offences related to
narcotics.&nbsp; The counts were;<o:p></o:p>1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Attempted
exportation of Narcotic Drug without lawful authority. <o:p></o:p>2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Possession
of Narcotic Drug without Lawful Authority.<o:p></o:p>Both counts were contrary to
Sections 56(a), 1(1) and 2(1) respectively of the Narcotic Drugs (Control,
Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990 PNDCL 236.&nbsp;
The Court below convicted the appellant and sentenced him to a term of
14 years IHL on each count to run concurrently.<o:p></o:p>In his notice of appeal, the
appellant raised four main grounds of appeal, viz; <o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">That
 the conviction ought to be set aside on the ground that it cannot be
 supported having regard to the evidence.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">That
 the Regional Tribunal erred when it relied on the evidence of PW3, D/Insp.
 C. S. Baidoo in making its decision when the witness was unavailable for
 cross examination at the trial.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">That
 the Regional Tribunal erred when it relied on Exhibit ‘E’ which was
 destroyed and unavailable to be cross-examined upon at the trial.<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">That
 the Ghana Standards Board Report [Exhibit ‘C’] contained inconsistencies
 which made it unreliable.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>Briefly the appellant was
arrested in the evening of 10th December, 2006 at the Kotoka
International Airport.&nbsp; He was in the
process of boarding an Ethiopian Airline Flight to Kenya.&nbsp; He was randomly chosen for a hand swipe test
which allegedly indicated that he had come into contact with cocaine.&nbsp; His body and hand luggage was searched but
nothing incriminating was found.&nbsp; A bag
was retrieved from the airline counter at the departure hall, in which a
quantity of white substance suspected to be cocaine was found in a hidden
compartment.&nbsp; The prosecution claimed
that the appellant identified the bag as his.&nbsp;
He was subsequently arraigned before the Regional Tribunal.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the appellant in
his submissions filed in this court argued that the conviction ought to be set
aside on the ground that it cannot be supported having regard to evidence.&nbsp; In the context of this ground of appeal, the
appellant states that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the appellant had in his possession 7.078 kg of cocaine.&nbsp; In that case the prosecution needed to
establish that;<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The white substance allegedly found in
the bag was cocaine.<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the bag (Exhibit ‘E’) was in the
possession of the appellant.<o:p></o:p>Counsel submitted that there
was a degree of inconsistency in the dates on which Exhibit ‘D’ i.e. the cocaine
was submitted to the Ghana Standards Board for analytical examination.&nbsp; To Counsel, the evidence should have been
rejected on account of the inconsistency.&nbsp;
It must be noted that the inconsistency in the dates became an issue
which was considered by the Tribunal in its ruling upon a submission of no case
by the appellant during the trial.&nbsp; This
is what the Tribunal said in respect of the inconsistency.<o:p></o:p></</main>