THE REPUBLIC vs. MICHAEL QUARTEY AND DAWUDA [2015]DLHC3566

Date	2015-04-22
Suit No.	CASE NO.680/13
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3566

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2015]DLHC3566
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MICHAEL QUARTEY AND
DAWUDA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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.680/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 22ND APRIL, 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

HER
LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>Michael
Quartey, the first accused person herein, and one Dawuda (at large) are alleged
to be partners of crime. Specifically, they have been charged with conspiracy
to commit crime to wit stealing, contrary to sections 23(1)&nbsp; and 124 (1)of the Criminal Offences Act,
1960, Act 29 and stealing, contrary to sections 124(1) of Act 29/60 as amended
by paragraph 4 of NLDC 398 of 1969.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>A2
escaped arrest. When A1 was arraigned before this court, the charges were read,
interpreted and explained to him in Twi language. He pleaded not guilty to both
counts.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of the case as presented by the prosecutor are that both the complainant
and A1 reside in Aburaso, Kumasi. On 01/06/2013. a witness in this case saw A1
and A2 in an uncompleted building of which the complainant is a caretaker. The
witness who suspected the accused persons to be criminals, called other
people's attention and raised an alarm. On sensing danger, the accused persons jumped
over the wall and run away. The witness followed up to A1's house and met him.
The father of A1 was informed about the incident and together with the witness,
they went to the scene where a sack containing electrical wires and air
condition pipes which had been removed from the building were found. A1 was
subsequently arrested and during investigations, he mentioned A2 as his
accomplice.&nbsp; The prosecution added that
even though A1 pleaded not guilty, his father had a meeting with the
complainant who gave the value of the items as GH¢10,400.00 of which A1's
father paid GH¢ 3000.00.<o:p></o:p>The
accused person has denied the charges leveled against him. This being a
criminal case, the prosecution bears the onerous burden of proving the guilt of
the accused person. &nbsp;The standard
required is proof beyond reasonable doubt as spelt out under sections 11(2)
13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 NRCD 323. The provisions are stated below:<o:p></o:p>Sec
11(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>" In a criminal action the burden of producing
evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to
guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all
the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a
reasonable doubt"<o:p></o:p>Sec
13(1)<o:p></o:p>" In any civil or criminal action, the burden of
persuasion as to he commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue
requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt."<o:p></o:p>A
case in point is Oteng v The State ( 1966) GLR 352 . At page 355 of the report,
the supreme Court, per Ollenu&nbsp; JSC
stated:<o:p></o:p>" ... the citizen too is entitled to protection
against the state and that our law is that a person accused of a crime is
presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as
distinct from fanciful doubt".<o:p></o:p>Denning
J in Miller v Minister of Pensions ( 1947) 2 All ER 372 at pages 373-374
explained what amounts to a reasonable doubt in these words:<o:p></o:p>" If the evidence is so strong against a man as to
leave only a &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; remote
possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the sentence 'of course it is possible', but not in the least probable,'
the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt."<o:p></o:p>The
burden of introducing evidence shifts to the accused person if at the end of
the prosecution's case an explanation is called for. Unlike the onerous burden
on the prosecution, when the burden of persuasion shifts onto the accused
person, he is only required to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. This
position of the law is clearly spelt out under section 11(3) and section 13(2)
of N.R.C.D. 323.&nbsp; On the same principle,
Sankey LC in the case of Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions ( 1935)
AC 462 at 481 had this to say:<o:p></o:p>" While the prosecution must prove the guilt of
the prisoner, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; there is no such
burden laid on the prisoner to prove his &nbsp; innocence
and it is sufficient for him to raise a reasonable &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; doubt as to his guilt."&nbsp; This was applied in COP v Antwi ( 1961) GLR
408.<o:p></o:p>The
prosecution explained to the court that&nbsp;
they will be able to produce one witness which is the investigator.&nbsp; Indeed, this investigat</main>