THE REPUBLIC vs. JAMES ARTHUR [2011]DLCA3714

Date	2011-01-28
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. H2/4/2010
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA3714

MARIAMA OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING)

F.G. KORBIEH J.A.

IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS.) J.A.

[2011]DLCA3714
																																						<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" >&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;JAMES ARTHUR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. H2/4/2010&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;DATE: 28TH JANUARY, 2011<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

MARIAMA
OWUSU (MISS), J.A. (PRESIDING), F.G. KORBIEH, J.A. AND IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS.),
J.A.<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>The appellant herein is the Republic.
It has appealed against the judgment of the High Court, Kumasi presided over by
K.A.Pobih, J who had acquittd and discharged the respondent from the charge of
causing unlawful damage to a partially completed building on plot no. 32, Block
F, Ampeyoo. The facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution to the trial
court may be summarized as follows: there was a dispute between the
complainant, one Joseph Oppong, and the respondent over the ownership of a
parcel of land on part of which the respondent had planted some oil palm trees.
After the respondent refused to remove his palm trees from the land, the
complainant felled twenty of the trees and proceeded to build a six-bedroom
house on the land. The building was worth one hundred and fifty million (old)
cedis. He later went back to Australia from where he had come. On the 8/9/2002,
the complainant returned from Australia to roof the house only to see it had
been demolished. The respondent, upon his arrest by the police, wrote a caution
statement in which he confessed that it was he who demolished the house of the
complainant. He had earlier sued the complainant and another person in the
court over the ownership of the land in question.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On being charged with the offence
afore-mentioned before the trial court the respondent pleaded not guilty and
the case proceeded to trial. The prosecution called five witnesses including
the complainant and the investigator who tendered in evidence (without
objection) the caution statement of the respondent. In that statement (tendered
as exhibit C) the respondent confessed that he pulled down part of the building
and that he did it alone and not “with some macho men” as was alleged. At the
close of the case for the prosecution, the trial judge found that a prima facie
case had been made against the respondent and therefore ordered him to open his
defence. The respondent testified for himself and called two other people to
testify in his defence. In his sworn evidence before the trial court however,
the respondent denied demolishing the house. These are his own words:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “I told the police to put me in
place of the children because I was the owner of the land. The children were
then released. I gave a statement to the police on that Tuesday when the
children were released. It was then about 3.00 – 4.00 p.m. I accepted
responsibility for the demolition of the building. I am now Sixty-five years
old. I did not order the demolition of the building but I accepted responsibility
because of my children. I never admitted that I caused the demolition to take
place. It is not true that I trespassed unto the extra four acre piece of land.
I acquired that place from Nana Apengtenhene.” <o:p></o:p>At the end of the trial, the learned
trial judge gave his judgment part of which reads as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
“I find the evidence adduced by the accused in his defence has thrown
doubts into the case for the prosecution. The accused has denied being the
person who destroyed the complainant’s building on the land. The accused
asserted that he accepted responsibility for the destruction because his
children were arrested as being responsible for the destruction. There is
evidence that the place is wetland which is not suitable for any building to be
constructed there. There is a plan (exhibit 4) which shows the area to be a
natural reserve (a swampy) (sic) which was allocated to the accused for the
cultivation of oil palm.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The doubts so created in my mind
accrue to the benefit of the accused, and hence he was&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; accordingly discharged.”&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>It is this judgment that the Republic
has appealed on the following three grounds:<o:p></o:p>