EMMANUEL ANTWI vs. THE REPUBLIC [2015]DLHC3534

Date	2015-12-02
Suit No.	CASE NO.D15/121/15
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3534

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.)

MATTHIAS GOLLO FOR APPELLANT.

JUSTINA ROSEBUD ANYAN FOR REPUBLIC.

[2015]DLHC3534
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">EMMANUEL
ANTWI<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), KUMASI]<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">

CASE NO.D15/121/15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 2ND DECEMBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MATTHIAS
GOLLO FOR 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">

JUSTINA ROSEBUD ANYAN FOR REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.)<o:p></o:p>

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
Appellant, a young man of 18 years and three others ( who have not appealed),
were arraigned before the Circuit Court at Juaso on various charges under the
Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960, Act 29&nbsp;
as set out below :<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Conspiracy, to steal contrary to
section 23(1) and 124(1)<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Causing unlawful damage, contrary to
section 172(1) B<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Unlawful Entry, contrary to section 152
<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Stealing, contrary to section 124(1) <o:p></o:p>However,
the prosecution withdrew the 4th Count on stealing and the same was
accordingly struck out by the trial court.&nbsp;
The appellant, just like the other co-accused persons, pleaded guilty to
the three counts and was convicted on his own plea, and was sentenced to 24
months imprisonment with hard labour. The other accused persons were also given
the same sentence.<o:p></o:p>Aggrieved
by this sentence, the Appellant filed a petition on 21/10/15, and the sole ground
of appeal is that the sentence is excessive in the circumstances. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Briefly, the facts which brought about the
prosecution are that the Appellant, an 18 year old student, together with
another 18 year old student and a 21 year old mason, broke into the provisions
store of the Complainant at Okyerekrom at about 1:30am on 30/09/2015.&nbsp; An eye witness who was alerted by the unusual
noise peeped through his window and saw that the three young men had packed
their booty into a hand bag ready to leave. The witness came out and on seeing
him, these young men took to their heels. The 1st Convict was arrested and he
mentioned the appellant and one other as his accomplices. These three young men
admitted the offences in their cautioned statement to the police. The
complainant alleged that there had been series of theft of provisions from her
store but all efforts to arrest the culprits proved futile.<o:p></o:p>In
arguing this appeal, counsel for the appellant described the circumstances
under which the appellant got involved in the Act. That is, the Appellant who
is a Form 2 SHS student and a boarder came home to pick up his reading glasses.
It was very late and so he decided to sleep.&nbsp;
In the process, he got involved with the other convicts.&nbsp; Counsel's plea was that being an SHS student,
the custodial sentence may jeopardize his future. If prayed the court to impose
a punishment that will correct the appellant, and not otherwise, especially,
when he is a young and first offender. <o:p></o:p>On
the contrary, the Learned Assistant State Attorney for The Republic was of the
view that the 12 months sentence is not harsh and excessive. She argued that
the court below in sentencing the Appellant, took into consideration all the
mitigating factors that counsel has mentioned, before passing the deterrent
sentence.<o:p></o:p>In criticizing a sentence as too severe, the&nbsp; concern is not so much that the trial court
has exceeded&nbsp; its jurisdictional range,
but rather that there were mitigating factors which were ignored or were not
comprehended by the trial court. In imposing a sentence, a trial court must
take all the circumstances of the case into account i.e.&nbsp;&nbsp; mitigating or aggravating factors. <o:p></o:p>