THE REPUBLIC vs. GODFRED AGGREY @ EKOW, SALIM AMIN AND ISAAC AMANIAPONG @ FIIFI [2012]DLCA7956

Date	2012-04-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H2/01/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA7956

S.K.MARFUL-SAU J.A

C.J.HONYENUGA J.A

DENNIS ADJEI J.A.

MRS KLINOGO (CSA) FOR THE RESPONDENT

MR. FELIX FORSON FOR THE APPELLANT

[2012]DLCA7956
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GODFRED AGGREY
@ EKOW, SALIM AMIN AND ISAAC AMANIAPONG @ FIIFI<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. H2/01/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 25TH APRIL, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>MRS
KLINOGO (CSA) FOR THE RESPONDENT<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">

MR.
FELIX FORSON FOR THE APPELLANT<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">

S.K.MARFUL-SAU
J.A, C.J.HONYENUGA J.A, DENNIS ADJEI 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:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">

</div>DENNIS
ADJEI, J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the judgment delivered by the High Court Sekondi on 6th
June, 2007. On 15th March, 2010 the Court of Appeal, Accra granted leave
to the 3rd accused person, the appellant herein to appeal against
both conviction and sentence. On 18th March, 2010 the appellant
filed his Notice of Appeal pursuant to the leave granted him to appeal against
both conviction and sentence. The appellant filed two grounds of appeal,
namely;<o:p></o:p>“1.
That the conviction was an error in law and<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2. That the sentence was herein and excessive”.<o:p></o:p>The&nbsp;&nbsp; appellant indicated that he would file
additional grounds of appeal on receipt of the record of appeal but did not
file any.<o:p></o:p>The
brief facts of the case were that one Sharon Owusu Antwi who was a student of
Takoradi Polytechnic was robbed by the accused persons and&nbsp; one other person who is&nbsp; at large. On 11th October, 2006 &nbsp;at about 3 a.m. the&nbsp; victim was on &nbsp;her way&nbsp;
to the Takoradi lorry station to&nbsp;
board&nbsp; a bus&nbsp; to Accra and on reaching&nbsp; Melcom she saw&nbsp; four person(men) who were&nbsp; hurriedly after her. One&nbsp; of the four&nbsp;
men&nbsp; who&nbsp; was then wearing a black ‘T’ shirt tried to
pull her bag which&nbsp; was in her armpit.
He&nbsp; pushed the victim unto a cement block
and took away her bag. The&nbsp; bag contained
a&nbsp; camera mobile phone, an amount of
GH¢87.50, a book, student and&nbsp; voter’s Identity
Cards. When the victim&nbsp; got&nbsp; up from&nbsp;
the attack she found&nbsp; that her
palm had been slashed. She reported to the Market Circle Police at&nbsp; Takoradi&nbsp;
and was&nbsp; issued&nbsp; with a medical report&nbsp; to&nbsp;
attend hospital. At&nbsp; about 1 pm on
the same day the four men (the accused &nbsp;persons and the one at large) boarded an Accra
bound city express bus with a locally manufactured pistol, sharp cutlass and three(3)
razor&nbsp; blades with the&nbsp; intention to &nbsp;rob the passengers on board. The transport
officer at the bus terminal became suspicious of the four men and he alerted
the driver. The driver drove to the Police Station for them to be arrested (but
the one at large) Obed, who was sitting in front of the&nbsp; bus alighted and escaped.<o:p></o:p>I will
now address the grounds of appeal. The appellant in his written submission
persuaded the court to declare the trial a nullity because it was conducted
contrary to law and procedure. According to the appellant, they were tried and
convicted&nbsp; for the offences of conspiracy
to commit&nbsp; robbery contrary to sections
23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29) and Robbery
Contrary&nbsp; to section 149&nbsp; of the Criminal Offences Act&nbsp; 1960&nbsp;
(Act 29) and the&nbsp; offence of
robbery being a first degree&nbsp; felony the
mode of trial&nbsp; should have been &nbsp;on indictment and not&nbsp; summary as was done in this case by the&nbsp; trial High court. The appellant further
contended that Article 19 (2) (a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana
1992 provides that the mode of trial for offences of which the punishment may
be life or death, apart&nbsp; from treason or
high treason shall be tried by a Judge and a jury; that is&nbsp; trial on indictment and failing to conduct a
trial on indictment renders the proceedings a nullity. See the cases of Mosi
vs. Bagyina [1963]2 GLR 337 and Acheampong vs. the Republic [1996-97] SCGLR 566.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant did not advert his mind to the Criminal and Other Offences
(Amendment) Act 2004, Act 646 which amended section 149 of Act 29 and NRCD II,
the Suppression of Robbery Decree. Act 646 provides that robbery&nbsp; could be&nbsp;
tried&nbsp; either summarily or on
indictment and has also varied the &nbsp;sentences provided in section 149 of Act 29
and NRCD II. The law&nbsp; now provides
the&nbsp; minimum sentences that the courts
can impose&nbsp; in robbery cases where no
weapon is used and where an offensive weapon or missile is used and they are
ten(10) years and fifteen (15) years respectfully. The contention by counsel
for the appellant that robbery can only be tried on indictment is without legal
basis and same is dismissed as without merits.<o:p></o:p>