THE REPUBLIC vs. EKENE ANOZIE [2013]DLCA8141

Date	2013-06-27
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL SUIT NO. H2/44/12
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8141

APALOO JA (PRESIDING)

GYAESAYOR JA

SOWAH JA

MS AFIA NYARKO ADU-AMANKWA STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC/ APPELLANT

EDWARD SAM CRABBE ESQ FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2013]DLCA8141
																																						<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>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EKENE ANOZIE<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. H2/44/12&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
27TH JUNE, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MS
AFIA NYARKO ADU-AMANKWA STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE REPUBLIC/ 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">

EDWARD
SAM CRABBE ESQ FOR THE 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, SOWAH 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">

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

</div>APALOO JA;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is an appeal by the Republic against
the decision of the High Court Accra delivered on 4th April
2012.&nbsp; The decision acquitted and
discharged the Respondent on charges of conspiracy to rob and robbery contrary
to sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).<o:p></o:p>In
the trial Court the Respondent was the 2nd accused and was charged
with the 1st accused, Joseph Baidoo and one other person at large,
with the offences of conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery contrary to
sections 23(1) and 149 of Act 29.<o:p></o:p>It
was the case of the Prosecution that on 29th September, 2008 at
about 2:30am, three young men including the Respondent armed with guns attacked
Louis Doe Atsiatorme (PW1) and his family.&nbsp;
At gun point they robbed PW1 of his laptop and an amount of
GH¢500.00.&nbsp; They also took away assorted
mobile phones and two other laptops belonging to other members of the
family.&nbsp; A report was made to the
Sakumono Police who in the course of investigations received a tip off from PW1
that his ACER laptop had been found in possession of one Godsway (PW5).&nbsp; PW5 led the Police to Tsatsu (PW7) who in turn
stated that he had bought the laptop from the 1st accused.&nbsp; PW1 later identified the laptop as his.&nbsp; On 21st October 2008, the Respondent
and the 1st accused were arrested at Somanya and two laptops; an
ACER and an HP were found in their possession.&nbsp;
The Respondent claimed ownership of the HP laptop.&nbsp; At the Tema Regional CID, the complainant,
his wife (PW2) and one of his three children (PW4) identified both the
Respondent and 1st accused as the persons who came to rob them on
the day of the incident. &nbsp;Senam (PW3)
also identified them as the robbers who came to their house.&nbsp; He identified the HP laptop as his.&nbsp; The Prosecution called nine witnesses at the
trial.&nbsp; The trial Court acquitted and
discharged the Respondent and 1st accused on the count of conspiracy,
but convicted the 1st accused on the charge of robbery.&nbsp; The Respondent was however acquitted on the
same charge of robbery.&nbsp; These acquittals
led to this very appeal with the following grounds;<o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Judgment cannot be supported in law having regard to &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the evidence adduced at the trial
by the appellant.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Learned trial Judge erred in law in his interpretation
on <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the law of conspiracy.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge erred in his application of the
facts and <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;evidence adduced at the trial to the law on
conspiracy.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge erred by concluding that the <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; prosecution did not lead sufficient
evidence to establish the <o:p></o:p>