IBRAHIM ABDULAI vs. THE REPUBLIC [2015]DLCA8001

Date	2015-12-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H2/11/2016
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8001

ADJEI JA – PRESIDING

MRS. SOWAH JA

MENSAH JA

[2015]DLCA8001
																																						<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" >IBRAHIM ABDULAI<o:p></o:p>(ACCUSED/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KOFORIDUA]<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">

SUIT NO: H2/11/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: 15TH DECEMBER, 2015<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">

ADJEI JA – PRESIDING,
MRS. SOWAH JA, MENSAH JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ADJEI, J.A:<o:p></o:p>The Appellant here in was the third Accused Person
in the case heard by the Circuit Court, Tema. The Circuit Court on 17th
November, 2012 convicted all the Accused persons therein and sentenced each one
of them to fifteen (15) years with Hard Labour.<o:p></o:p>The charges preferred against the Accused persons
were Conspiracy to Commit Crime Contrary to Section
23 (1) of Act 29/60. Six Counts of Robbery, Contrary to Section 149 of Act
29, Possession of Narcotic Drug without Authority Contrary to Section 2 (1) of
PNDCL 236/90 and possession of firearm without Authority Contrary to Section 11
(1) of Arms and Ammunition Decree NRCD 9 of 1972.<o:p></o:p>The 3rd Accused person; the Appellant
herein was convicted for all the Counts except Count eight (8) and was
sentenced to fifteen (15) years I.H.L on all the seven (7) Counts.<o:p></o:p>The Appellant in his Notice of Appeal is pleading
for mitigation of sentence. According to him the sentence of fifteen (15) years
imposed on him by the trial Court on each Count of Robbery was harsh and
excessive and this Court should intervene to set aside the sentence and
substitute a lenient one.<o:p></o:p>The Offence under which the Appellant was convicted,
that is The Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 2003, Act 64 provides
as follows:<o:p></o:p>“Whoever commits Robbery is Guilty of an Offence and shall be liable
upon conviction on trial summarily or an indictment, to imprisonment for a term
of not less than ten (10) years, and where the offence is committed by the use
of an Offensive Weapon or Offensive missile, the Offender shall upon conviction
be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen (15) years”.<o:p></o:p>The facts of the case disclosed that, the Appellant
herein had on himself a pistol while the 1st and 2nd Accused
person brought a machete and a big gun to carry out the Robbery at Sunlight
Engineering Ltd. <o:p></o:p>The Minimum Sentence the Circuit Court could
impose was fifteen (15) years due to the offensive weapon and the missile used
by the accused person.<o:p></o:p>Article 14 (6) of the Constitution enjoins a Court
when imposing appropriate Sentence to take into consideration the period spent
in lawful custody by the accused person with respect to that offence before the
completion of his trial. Article 14 (6) of the Constitution provides thus:<o:p></o:p>“Where a person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment
for an offence, any period he has spent in lawful custody in respect of that
offence before the completion of his trial shall be taken into account in
imposing the term of imprisonment”. <o:p></o:p>The law is that the Court in considering the
period spent by the accused person in respect of that offence before the
completion of his trial may be express or by necessary implication. In the case
of Bosso
v. The Republic [2009] SCGLR 420 the Supreme Court held that a
Court in imposing sentencing shall take Article 14 (6) of the Constitution and
must either explicitly or implicitly be clear on the record. We are satisfied
that the trial Circuit Court Judge took into consideration the period spent by the
Appellant herein in lawful Custody with respect to the offence of Robbery hence
imposing the minimum sentence.<o:p></o:p>We are satisfied that the trial Judge implicitly
took into consideration Article 14 (6) and this Court cannot disturb the
appropriate sentence imposed by the Circuit Court on the Accused person.<o:p></o:p>We therefore d</main>