MOHAMMED KAMARA vs. THE REPUBLIC [2014]DLCA3602

Date	2014-03-13
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.H2/24/2012
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA3602

KANYOKE J.A (PRESIDING)

GYAESAYOR J.A

SOWAH (MRS) J.A

MR. AUGUSTINES OBOUR FOR THE APPELLANT

MR. MATTHEW AMPONSAH (CSA) FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2014]DLCA3602
																																						<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" >MOHAMMED
KAMARA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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.H2/24/2012&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; &nbsp; &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: 13TH MARCH, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR.
AUGUSTINES OBOUR FOR THE APPELLANT<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">

MR.
MATTHEW AMPONSAH (CSA) FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>KANYOKE J.A (PRESIDING) GYAESAYOR, J.A SOWAH (MRS), J.A<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 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>SOWAH, J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant, who is a Sierra Leonian resident in Ghana, was charged with others
at large with Robbery contrary to section 149 of the Criminal Code 1960, Act 29
as amended by Act 646. He was said to have robbed one Muntari Adamu of cash sum
of GH¢8,000.00 at gunpoint at his residence at Race Course in Accra on 4th
September 2008. After trial, he was convicted of the offence and sentenced to
15 years IHL, and to be deported after serving his sentence in a judgment dated
13th October 2011. <o:p></o:p>The
appellant promptly filed a Notice of appeal against conviction on 4th
November 2011. The stated ground of appeal was:<o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the identification
that he was taken as the criminal because he had open teeth was wrong in law.<o:p></o:p>On
30th May 2012, he filed the following additional grounds of appeal:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp; That there was gross miscarriage of justice
when the trial judge, instead of following normal procedure in adjudicating,
decided to hear the evidence of the appellant before hearing the case of the
prosecution.&nbsp; Hence the defence was heard
on 26th February 2009, whilst the prosecution started on 10th
September 2009.<o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That principle of fair
trial date laid out in the 1992 Constitution, made it mandatory for the trial
court to undertake to obtain the attendance of witnesses for the prosecution as
well as those of the accused. That the trial judge erred in law by asking
Appellant, an accused in custody, to make his “own arrangements” to get the
attendance of his witnesses (Refer page 18 of the record of court proceedings)<o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That this was in spite of
the fact that Appellant indicated to the court his potential witnesses, i.e.
his landlady and her daughters. Hence the trial court failed to use its powers
to subpoena witnesses to help in ensuring fairness and justice.<o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That by re-hearing the
evidence of the prosecution and allowing the swapping of PW2 to PW1, PW3 to PW2
and PW1 to PW3, the trial judge was biased and thus the trial was prejudicial
to the accused and, evidently there was substantial miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;