KWAME AKOTO vs. THE REPUBLIC [2010]DLHC8250

Date	2010-07-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. D15\|165\|10
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC8250

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON

FRANCIS KOFFIE FOR APPELLANT

ANITA WASE FOR THE REPUBLIC

[2010]DLHC8250
																																						<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" >KWAME AKOTO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<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. D15|165|10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
8TH JULY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FRANCIS
KOFFIE 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">

ANITA
WASE FOR THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JACOB B. BOON<o:p></o:p>

</div>This is an appeal from the judgment of His Honour D.P.W.
Amedior who presided over a Kumasi Circuit Court. In that court, the appellant
was charged with defilement contrary to section 101(1) of the Criminal Offences
Act 1960 (Act 29). The appellant is alleged to have defiled a fourteen year old
female on two different occasions and threatened to kill her if she revealed
the act to any one. However, after the second sexual intercourse, she told her
mother of her ordeal with the appellant. Her mother made a report to the police
leading to the arrest of the appellant and subsequently arraigned before the
Kumasi Circuit Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 22nd August, 2008, when the appellant
appeared in Court, he pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted on his
plea, but sentence was deferred to 3rd September, 2008. At the
adjourned date, he appeared with a counsel who applied to the court to give the
appellant the opportunity to defend himself because, as he put it, he was
informed by the appellant that on his first appearance he pleaded guilty with
explanation. He also told the court that the appellant’s instructions to him
were that he had never had sex with the said female.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his responses, the trial judge remarked that if the
appellant knew he was innocent of the charge, he should not have pleaded guilty
when he appeared before the court. He further remarked that there is nothing
like a plea of guilty with explanation in the law books. In his opinion after
an accused had pleaded guilty to an offence, the judge, before he passes
sentence, could give the opportunity to such an accused to say anything that he
had to tell the court, and after hearing it, the court could, if it considers
it appropriate, enter a plea of not guilty for him. He then added that the
appellant did not plead guilty with explanation as alleged by his counsel, and
went on to sentence him to ten years in hard labour.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The appellant is dissatisfied with both the conviction
and sentence, and has brought the instant appeal on the grounds that:<o:p></o:p>“(a)
the learned judge erred in law when he failed to enter a plea of guilty with explanation
on ground that there is no such plea under Ghana law.<o:p></o:p>(b)
the failure to enter a plea a guilty with explanation deprived the accused of
the right to give an explanation which might have influenced an entry of plea
of not guilty and thus occasioned, a miscarriage of justice”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In arguing the grounds of appeal, counsel for the
appellant contended that as the judge had formed the opinion that a plea of
guilty with explanation is unknown to our laws, he would have refused to record
any explanation that the appellant would have given at his trial. He admitted
that such a plea is not expressly provided for in our laws, but said a court is
bound to record any explanation offered by an accused person after pleading
guilty to a charge. According to the counsel what took place in court on the 3rd
of September, 2008, when the judge remarked that a plea of guilty with
explanation is unknown to the laws of Ghana is a reflection of the conduct of
the judge when he earlier convicted the appellant. He contended that though the
appellant pleaded guilty with explanation he was convicted without the
explanation being recorded. Counsel further argued that every explanation of an
accused, after a plea of guilty, however bad, ought to be recorded, and failure
to do so will amount to a fatal error which should operate to the benefit of
the accused person. He then prayed that under the circumstances of this case, the
conviction of the appellant ought to be quashed, or at least a retrial be
ordered as he had denied the charge through his counsel on the day he was
sentenced.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In response, counsel for the state, Miss Anita Wase, contended
that the appellant pleaded guilty simpliciter on his arraignment, and such a
plea relieves the prosecution of any burden to prove the charge. She argued
that the record showed that the charge was explained and the appellant
understood it before he pleaded guilty, and that the plea was unambiguous. She
submitted that if the appellant had added any words to the plea, the court
would have recorded the words, and if they were inconsistent with the plea of
guilty, a plea of not guilty would have been entered by the court; that the
court accepted the plea because it was not ambiguous, and it </main>