IN THE MATTER OF THE REPUBLIC vs. THE CIRCUIT COURT, KUMASI EX-PARTE KWABENA MENSAH [2018]DLHC4590

IN THE MATTER OF THE REPUBLIC vs. THE CIRCUIT COURT, KUMASI EX-PARTE KWABENA MEN... [2018]DLHC4590

Date	2018-11-05
Suit No.	CASE NO.D16/104/18
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC4590

JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI

MARY MARGARET ADJEI-TWUM FOR APPLICANT

FRANKLINA OPOKU FOR RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC4590
																																						<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" >IN THE MATTER OF THE
REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE CIRCUIT COURT,
KUMASI EX-PARTE KWABENA MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, 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.D16/104/18&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: 5th NOVEMBER,
2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MARY
MARGARET ADJEI-TWUM FOR APPLICANT<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">

FRANKLINA
OPOKU FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
FRANCIS OBIRI<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<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>On
7-6-18, the applicant filed motion on notice seeking to invoke the supervisory
jurisdiction of this court for an order to quash the decision of the Circuit
Court Kumasi, dated 12th August, 2016 which was made by her Honour Comfort
Tasiame, Circuit Court judge.<o:p></o:p>The
background facts of the substantive case indicate that, the applicant who was
aged 18 years as of 2016, was arraigned before the Circuit Court Kumasi, on a
charge of defilement of a child under 16 years of age contrary to section 101
(2) of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).<o:p></o:p>He
pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case went through trial.<o:p></o:p>At
the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 7 years I.H.L.
on 12th August, 2016. The applicant was convicted for having sex with the
victim Serwaa Dwabeng a female age the sentence allowed by the relevant
provision under the<o:p></o:p>Juvenile
Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653).<o:p></o:p>(10)
That I am again advised and verily believed same to be true that, this Honourable
Court can exercise it supervisory jurisdiction to quash the sentence imposed on
me.<o:p></o:p>The
State opposed the application by filling affidavit in opposition on 20-6-<o:p></o:p>18.
The relevant paragraphs are as follows:<o:p></o:p>(3)
That the court sentenced him to the minimum prison term for the offence of
defilement which is seven years.<o:p></o:p>(4)
That the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction and consciously stayed
within the parameters established by law.<o:p></o:p>(5)
That the applicant is only seeking to supplant the proper avenue that can fully
address his grievance with this application.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant and the State filed their respective statements of case.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant argued that, the applicant was 18 years at the time of his conviction.
However, the trial judge overlooked the age and sentenced him to 7 years IHL.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant contended that, the applicant should have been sentenced
under sections 46 (1) (d) and (8) of Act 653 and not under Act 29. Applicant
counsel therefore submitted that, the trial judge did not have jurisdiction to
sentence the applicant to 7 years IHL upon conviction.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant counsel further contended that, the applicant was a young offender
and therefore should have been sentenced under section 46 (1) (d) and 46 (8) of
Act 653.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant also argued that, the words stated under sections<o:p></o:p>46
(1) (d) and 46 (8) of Act 653 are plain and unambiguous. Therefore, their ordinary
meaning should be given to them.<o:p></o:p>Applicant
counsel again submitted that, Act 653 binds all courts in Ghana including the
trial court. Therefore, the trial judge should not have sentenced the applicant
to 7 years IHL but 3 years IHL.<o:p></o:p>Consequently,
the trial judge exceeded her jurisdiction when she sentenced the applicant to 7
years IHL. Counsel cited a number of authorities to buttress her arguments.<o:p></o:p>The
State on the other hand filed her statement of case and submitted as follows:
First, the trial judge sentenced the applicant to the minimum prison term under
section 101 of Act 29.<o:p></o:p>Secondly,
the court was vested with jurisdiction to sentence the applicant to 7 years IHL
as the court did, therefore, the trial judge did not exceed her jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>The
State Attorney further argued that, it is only Magistrates who can impose three
years sentences and not judges. With respect to the learned State<o:p></o:p>Attorney,
this argument is not sanctioned by any law. This is because; sentence after
conviction is backed by statute. Therefore, even if a High<o:p></o:p></s</main>