BEQUE DEKOLO vs. THE REPUBLIC [2017]DLCA4499

Date	2017-06-27
Suit No.	CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: H2/2/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA4499

HONYENUGA J.A. (PRESIDING)

GYAN J.A.

SUURBAAREH J.A.

MISS PAT KLINOGO CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT

MR. MICHAEL MONNIE FOR THE APPELLANT

[2017]DLCA4499
																																						<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" >BEQUE DEKOLO <o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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">

CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO:&nbsp; H2/2/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 27TH JUNE, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MISS PAT KLINOGO, CHIEF STATE
ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT<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">

MR.
MICHAEL MONNIE FOR THE APPELLANT<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">

HONYENUGA
J.A. (PRESIDING), GYAN J.A., SUURBAAREH J.A.<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>HONYENUGA, J.A.<o:p></o:p>The appellant and another were convicted by the Circuit
Court, Tarkwa on the 3rd February, 2004 on the offences of
conspiracy to commit crime contrary to section 23 of the Criminal Offences Act,
1960, (Act 29) and defilement contrary to section 101 of the Criminal Offences
Act, 1960 (Act 29) as amended by section 101 of Act 554, 1998.&nbsp; The appellant like his accomplice were
sentenced to 20 years imprisonment with hard labour on each count but on an
appeal to the High Court, Sekondi, his appeal was on 4th April, 2006
dismissed and his sentence enhanced to the maximum sentence of 25 years
imprisonment with worse strenuous labour imaginable.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts of this appeal were that on the 13th
November 2003, at about 6pm, the complainant, a fifteen year old JHS pupil went
to sell rice at Omanpe/Abochie.&nbsp; At about
6.30pm, the complainant set off to go back home and on the way, she saw the
appellant and the convict following her.&nbsp;
The convict proposed love to her but she informed him that she was an
apprentice and therefore he should inform her mother.&nbsp; Both the convict and the appellant then decided
to follow her to her village.&nbsp; Upon
reaching the village, the convict pushed the pan she was carrying which
contained tomatoes, pepper and money and it fell down.&nbsp; While the complainant knelt down in an
attempt to pick the items on the ground, the convict held her neck, while the
appellant held her legs and they dragged her into a secondary forest nearby and
put her under a mango tree.&nbsp; In the
process, they forcibly tore and removed her pants while the appellant pinned
her down while the convict had sexual intercourse with her.&nbsp; After the convict had satisfied himself, he
held the neck of complainant and the appellant also forcibly had his turn.&nbsp; Later, the appellant held the neck of the
complainant, pinned her down and the convict forcibly had another sexual
intercourse with her.&nbsp; After satisfying
themselves, both convicts gave her a total of ¢5,000.00 (old cedis) and allowed
her to go home.&nbsp; Her pants and the
underskirt were all torn and she left them in the bush together with her
sandals.&nbsp; While heading towards home, the
complainant met a woman and narrated her ordeal to her and in the process she
fell down and collapsed.&nbsp; Water was
poured on her before she regained consciousness.&nbsp; The woman took her to her uncle who together
took her to the clinic but she was later referred to the Enchi Hospital.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A report was made to the Police, where she wrote a
statement and was issued with a Medical Form to attend hospital where she was
treated.&nbsp; The convicts were then charged
with the offences as charged.&nbsp; The convict
and the appellant were convicted on both counts and were sentenced to 20 years
imprisonment with hard labour on each count to run concurrently.&nbsp; The appellant later filed an appeal to the
High Court, Sekondi, where the appeal was dismissed and his sentence was
enhanced to the maximum sentence of twenty five (25) years imprisonment with
the worse strenuous labour imaginable in prison circles.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The appellant being aggrieved by the enhanced sentence,
filed the instant appeal against the sentence based on the following grounds:-<o:p></o:p>“That the maximum sentence of twenty-five (25) years is
harsh and excessive”.<o:p></o:p>Arguing the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that although the offence charged is a serious one, the sentence
would not serve the interest of justice.&nbsp;
He further contended that in determining a sentence, the court is
equally enjoined to consider how to reform the convict and not necessarily use
the sentence is a deterrent.&nbsp; Counsel
submitted that in sentencing the appellant, the learned High Court Judge failed
to consider the overall goal of sentencing.&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel stated that an appeal is by way of rehearing
and that the court has a discretion in imposing sentences.&nbsp; He referred to Mohammed Kamil v The Republic [2011] GMJ 1 SC.&nbsp;&nbsp; Counsel contended that the interest of the
appellant was not considered and that the sentences should not be seen as
counter-productive.&nbsp; Counsel contended
that the appellant is a youth who has learnt his lessons and prepared to live a
good and meaningful life should the appeal succeed.&nbsp; He further stated that the inability of the
appellant to control his se</main>