RAPHAEL ADZINI vs. THE REPUBLIC [2014]DLCA5015

Date	2014-05-22
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL SUIT NO. H2/18/2013
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA5015

APALOO JA (PRESIDING)

OFOE JA

WELBOURNE JA

MR. IGNITIUS DE PAUL FOR THE APPELLANT

MR. MATTHEW AMPONSAH CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY

[2014]DLCA5015
																																						<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" >RAPHAEL ADZINI<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CRIMINAL APPEAL SUIT NO.
H2/18/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
22/05/2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. IGNITIUS DE PAUL 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">

<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MR. MATTHEW AMPONSAH CHIEF
STATE ATTORNEY<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>APALOO
JA (PRESIDING), OFOE JA, WELBOURNE JA<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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>APALOO
JA;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Appellant was charged together with two
others with conspiracy to commit Robbery contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of
the Criminal Offences Act (Act 29/60) as amended by Act 646.<o:p></o:p>For the record it will be
appropriate to state that in the Court below the first accused, convict Aaron
Tay alias Elorm was alone charged with two counts of Robbery in the same trial.<o:p></o:p>At the end of the trial
the three accused persons including the Appellant were convicted on the charge
of conspiracy to commit Robbery and were sentenced to various terms of
imprisonment.&nbsp; The Appellant was
sentenced to 18 years IHL.&nbsp; Pursuant to
this conviction and sentence the Appellant has appealed to this court on the
following grounds;<o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Judgment and conviction of the Appellant are unreasonable
having regard to the evidence before the Court.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge erred in law by refusing to follow Arhin @ Paul Mall vrs The Republic
[1995-96] 1 GLR 190 CA holding one, and in preferring to follow Agogrobisah vrs The Republic [1995-96] 1
GLR 557 ……. without giving reasons for his preference.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial Court erred in holding that the Appellant was particeps
criminis.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the learned trial Judge erred in holding contra.&nbsp; Behome
Vrs The Republic [1979] GLR 112 HC that there was agreement between the Appellant
and the perpetrators of the crime of Robbery.<o:p></o:p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned trial Judge erred in relying heavily on the
written submission(s) of the prosecution when there was no evidence before the
court that it had been served on the Appellant for his re-action thereto,
thereby occasioning substantial miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial Court mis-recorded the actual evidence of the Appellant
when it held the view that the Appellant had testified that he sold his motor
bike to the named robber.<o:p></o:p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial Court’s view that the Appellant had said he sold
his motor bike to the named robber was against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial Court erred grievously contra Lanquaye Vrs The Republic [1976] 1 GLR 1, holding 2, when it relied
on the Appellant’s unsworn Police Investigation Statement to reject Appellant’s
testimony in court on grounds of alleged inconsistency between his sworn
testimony and his unsworn Police Investigation Statement.<o:p></o:p>9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial Court erred in law in relying heavily on the Appellant’s
Police Investigation Statement when the Police did not give the Appellant
sufficient time to engage a Lawyer contrary to his constitutional right.”<o:p></o:p>We find some of the
grounds to be based on case law and we shall refer to such cases as and when
the occasion demands. Before we consider these grounds of appeal we must first
get acquainted with the facts upon which the trial was mounted.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;A Businessman Mr. Frederick Franklin Fianku
Awuku designated in the trial as PW1 lived in Taifa, a suburb of Accra with his
wife PW3.&nbsp; Their daughter PW2 lived in
Taifa as well but in a different house.&nbsp;
PW2 and PW3 (mother and daughter) were traders who travelled a lot
particularly to the US to transact business.&nbsp;
The convicted 1st Accused Aaron Tay was a Taxi Driver.&nbsp; The convicted 2nd Accused was a Driver and at
the time prior to the trial was the personal Driver of PW3 but resided at
Taifa-Burkina another suburb of Accra.&nbsp;
The 3rd Accused/Appellant was an auto electrician and lived at Kaneshie.<o:p></o:p>In the early morning of
21st January 2009 at about 6.30am, PW2 and PW3 left home at Taifa for the
Kotoka International Airport for a flight to the USA for business transactions.&nbsp; It was PW1 who drove his wife and daughter to
the Airport although he was not participating in</main>