FREDERICK ANNOR (ALIAS NANA BONSU) vs. THE REPUBLIC [2018]DLCA6180

Date	2018-12-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/19/2013
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA6180

MARIAMA OWUSU J.A (PRESIDING)

HENRY A. KWOFIE J.A

AMMA GAISIE J.A

STEPHEN OSEI KOFI FOR THE APPELLANT

ANNA FRANKLINA OPOKU (S.A.) FOR THE REPUBLIC

[2018]DLCA6180
																																						<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" >FREDERICK ANNOR (ALIAS
NANA BONSU)<o:p></o:p>[APPELLANT]<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>[RESPONDENT]<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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">

SUIT NO. H1/19/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
21ST DEC. 2018<o:p></o:p>

ANNA
FRANKLINA OPOKU (S.A.) FOR THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>HENRY KWOFIE J.A:<o:p></o:p>This
appeal has been launched by the appellant herein against the judgment of the
High Court Kumasi dated 7th May 2011.&nbsp;
The appellant and another person were convicted of the offences of
Conspiracy to commit crime to wit robbery contrary to Section 23(1) and 149 of
Act 29/60 robbery contrary to Section 149 of Act 29/60, and assault.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>They
were both sentenced to nineteen (19) years I.H.L.&nbsp; on each count to run concurrently.&nbsp; Aggrieved by the said conviction and
sentence, the appellant filed a petition of appeal on 14/10/2016 pursuant to
leave granted by the High Court Kumasi on 13th October, 2016 on the following
grounds:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The decision of the Court has created
or occasioned a miscarriage of justice.<o:p></o:p>ii&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The sentence is excessive and harsh<o:p></o:p>iii&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Additional grounds of appeal will be
filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.<o:p></o:p>Subsequently
on 02/03/2018 the appellant filed additional grounds &nbsp;of appeal pursuant to leave granted on
27/02/2018 as follows:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The trial High Court erred when it
proceeded to hear the case without taking the plea of the accused person.<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The High Court erred when it convicted
the accused person to a prison term of nineteen (19) years on the third count
of assault.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case relating to the appellant are that the complainant was a
cashier at the Unity Oil Filling Station, Afrancho branch.&nbsp; The appellant is an artisan whilst the other
accused person is a sawmill operator.&nbsp; On
Sunday, the 20th of June 2010 at about 7:20 am, the appellant stopped a taxicab
being driven by one Isaac Yankyera.&nbsp; The
appellant asked the driver to take them to the Unity Oil Filling Station at
Afrancho. <o:p></o:p>On
arrival at the station at about 7:30 am, the appellant alighted and entered the
office of the complainant and brought out a locally made pistol and ordered the
complainant to surrender all the money in her possession.&nbsp; The appellant succeeded in taking an amount
of GH¢2,684 and a Barclays Bank cheque with face value of GH¢371.70 from the
complainant and rushed out with it to board the waiting taxi.&nbsp; He then ordered the taxi driver to move.&nbsp; Just as the driver was about to move, he
heard shouts from the complainant saying “thief, thief”.&nbsp; The driver became suspicious of the appellant
and was thus reluctant to move the vehicle.&nbsp;
The appellant pulled out the pistol and pointed it at the driver’s head
and began assaulting him.&nbsp; The driver
drove to Afrancho town where he could be rescued.&nbsp; He turned off the car engine and jumped out
of the taxi cab amidst shouts.&nbsp; This
attracted the attention of onlookers and bystanders who overpowered the
appellant and the other person and arrested them.&nbsp; The police who had the information arrived
later at the scene and arrested the accused persons.<o:p></o:p>Arguing
ground (a) of the additional ground of appeal which is that the High Court
erred when it proceeded to hear the case without taking the plea of the
appellant, counsel submitted that the plea of an accused person is so crucial
in a criminal prosecution such that the plea of an accused person will
determine whether the accused person would be convicted and sentenced or the
accused will go through a full trial.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
referred to Section 171 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences
Act 1960 (Act 30) and submitted that the law requires that before an accused
person could be tried under our laws, he should in the first place be given the
opportunity to either admit or deny the offence before the trial proceeds.&nbsp; He referred to the case of Mensuo Vrs The
Republic (1971) 2 GLR 30 and submitted that in the absence of a valid plea, the
whole trial was a nullity as it was akin to determining the case against the
accused/appellant without giving him a hearing.<o:p></o:p>Responding
to the arguments of counsel for the appellant, counsel for the
Respondent/Republic submitted that a careful reading of the judgment especially
at page 90 of the Record of appeal shows that the plea of the appellant was
taken.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>