KWABENA PAKA @ JUNCTION vs. THE REPUBLIC [2015]DLHC11660

Date	2015-10-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO BCRA 122/2015
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC11660

HIS LORDSHIP ALHAJ JUSTICE ABDULLAH IDDRISU

RAPHAEL KOFI BONIN (FOR THE APPELLANT)

JOSHUA SACKEY (FOR THE RESPONDENT)

[2015]DLHC11660
																																						<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" >KWABENA PAKA @ JUNCTION<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<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 BCRA 122/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 23RD OCTOBER,
2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>RAPHAEL
KOFI BONIN (FOR THE APPELLANT) <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JOSHUA SACKEY (FOR THE RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP ALHAJ JUSTICE ABDULLAH IDDRISU<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This is a criminal appeal by
the Appellant for mitigation of the sentences imposed on him in CC No. D2/69/09
and D2/48/09. In both cases the Appellant was sentenced to 17 years in IHL for
the sentences to run concurrently. The Appellant is not challenging the
convictions but rather says the sentences are harsh having regard to the
circumstances of the case.<o:p></o:p>The court below on 23/4/2009
convicted the Appellant in CC No. D2/69/09 and sentenced him to 17 years IH,
and on 22/7/2009 was convicted and sentenced to 17 years IHL with respect to
D2/48/09. The charges against the Appellant in CC No. D2/48/09 were conspiracy
to commit crime/stealing contrary to Section 124 (1) of Act 29. In case No.
D2/69/09 the charges were conspiracy to commit crime, stealing and causing
unlawful damage contrary to the law. The Appellant in both cases pleaded guilty
upon which he was convicted and sentenced.<o:p></o:p>The facts of the cases are
(1) in CC No. D2/69/09 as indicated in the charge sheet as follows; The
complainant is an Accountant and lives at Sowutuom. A1 (Kwabena Paka) was the
house help of the complainant and a friend of A2 (Yaw Boateng alias Burger at
large). On 24/7/08, the two conspired to steal money from the complainant’s
room in his absence. A2 (Yaw Boateng) then stood at the gate providing security
for A1 (Kwabena Paka) who entered the complainants room and stole an amount of
£10,000 and $56,700 as mentioned in the charge sheet. A1 afterwards set the
room ablaze as a cover-up thereby causing damage to two passports, valuable
documents and personal belongings of the complainant’s valued at GH₵5000
by burning same. On 16/2/09 A1 was arrested on similar offence he committed on
10/12/08 with others and during interrogation he admitted conspiring and
stealing money as mentioned in the charge sheet from the complainant’s room on
24/7/08 with A2. He however denied count three (3). He further revealed that he
used part of the money to buy cab with registration No. GW251Q which has been
retrieved and impounded and that A2 has escaped with the remaining money. After
normal investigations he was charged with the offences as stated on the charge
sheet and arraigned before the court below and in case No. D2/48/09 the facts
given are as follows: The complaint is an Accountant and lives at Sowutuom. A1
(Kwabena Paka) and A3 (Kweku Obeng) are unemployed whilst A2 (Awal Mohammed) is
a student. A1 was the house help of the complainant and a friend of A2 (Yaw Boateng
alias Burger at large).<o:p></o:p>On 10th day of December,
2008, the first three accused persons conspired to steal money from the
complainant’s room in his absence. A2 and A3 later in the day went to A1 in the
complainant’s house where he kept watch at the gate while A1 entered the
complainant’s room to bring out the money as mentioned in the charge sheet.
They afterwards brought the money to Sowutuom Last Stop where part of the money
was given to A3 and A5 after which A1 and A2 left with the rest for New Town where
they spend the night. On 11/12/08, A2 returned to Sowutuom after taking his
share of Gh₵6,000. A5 (Oppong) then traced &nbsp;A1 to New Town and brought him down on his
motor bike with A3 providing information within the area to them. A1 then left
with the remaining money for Goaso and on the way, had information that, Police
was waiting for him at Goaso. He then informed A5 on phone who advised that, he
should come back, he was met on the way by A4 (Chief Yakubu Ibrahim) and A5
(Oppong) who led him to a Mallam at Adeisu in the Eastern Region for spiritual
protection against arrest after collecting the money from him. On the 16/2/09
A1 was arrested from his hide out at Adeisu upon a tip off which in his caution
statement admitted the offence and mentioned A2, A3, A4 and A5. A2 in his
caution statement also admitted the offence but said he had only Gh₵3,000
out of which Gh₵200 was retrieved when his
room was searched, A3 also in his statement even though denied taking part; he
admitted receiving Gh₵200 form A1 for safe keeping
which was retrieved. A4 in his caution statement denied receiving money from A1
but admitted sending A1 to a Mallam at Adeisu for spiritual healing. After
investigation, the accused persons were charged with the offences as stated in
the charge sheet.<o:p></o:p>Based on these facts the
Appellant was charged as shown above and put before the court. He pleaded
guilty and was convicted on his own pleas in both cases. <o:p></o:p>Having heard the submission
of counsel for the parties and given the circumstances of the cases, I find
that the sentences were harsh. I also hold the view that despite the harshness
of the sentences the court below acted within its jurisdiction and authority
and was within the law, hence the sentences were lawful. I however observe that
there were certain mitigating factors which the court below did not take into
consideration, if it had done so probably the sentences would not have been so
harsh. The appellant was first offender not known to the law a family man who
has wife and children to take care of, the retrieval of the car which was
bought from the proceeds were ordered to be handed over to the complainant.<o:p></o:p>The appellant needs to be
reformed and not condemned to lose a greater part of his useful life which
could be used to assist the society as against coming out of prison old enough
not to be able to contribute to national development. The reformative objective
of punishment should be the cardinal principal in this matter. I think the
sentences of 17 years in each of the two cases is harsh and in the
circumstances I will reduce the sentences, from 17 years IHL to eight (8) years
in IHL in each of the two cases, 8 years is deterrent enough to reform the
appellant. It would also serve</main>