SOLOMON NANA ACHEAMPONG vs. THE REPUBLIC [2019]DLHC10144

Date	2019-07-29
Suit No.	CASE NO. CR/554/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10144

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

TWUMASI NAYYAR (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF CHARLES BAWADUAH) FOR APPELLANT

SETH AWERE OPANYINYENA (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY) FOR REPUBLIC/RESPONDENT)

[2019]DLHC10144
																																						<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" >SOLOMON NANA ACHEAMPONG<o:p></o:p>(CONVICT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(CRIMINAL DIVISION, 5) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SETH
AWERE OPANYINYENA (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY) FOR REPUBLIC/RESPONDENT) <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT ON
CRIMINAL APPEAL<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;On Friday 26 July
2019, I dismissed this criminal appeal and reserved my reasons for today, which
are as follows. This appeal was filed by appellant through his counsel against
the decision of the Circuit Court, Ashaiman dated 20 March 2019<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Solomon%20Nana%20Acheampong%20v%20Rep%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>
that convicted appellant to “18 months IHL and 70 penalty units”<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Solomon%20Nana%20Acheampong%20v%20Rep%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> on
charges of threat of death, and assault, contrary to section 75, and section 84
of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) respectively.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The complainant in
this case is the wife of the accused person. They live with their two children
at Bediako near Michel Camp. Three years prior to the incident, the couple have
not been in good relationship and that the couple live in separate rooms. The appellant
was seen by one of his littles children to have sprinkled some black substances
into the complainant’s room. At the first instance, uncertain who might have
done it, complainant swept the substance out of the room. At the second
instance, the little boy who saw appellant in the act informed her mother, the complainant
who not only swept it, but also this time around deposited the substance in appellant’s
room. The accused took offence, took the sweeping brush from complainant and
hit complainant with the brush. Appellant later took knife and caused damage to
the couple’s marriage pictures. Sensing danger, complainant locked herself in
her room, whilst appellant, armed with the knife kept ranting and threatening
“I will kill you today”. Complainant managed to escape through the back door
and dashed to the Golf City Police station and reported the incident. The police
accompanied the complainant to the house. Notwithstanding the presence of the
police, appellant without any hesitation slapped the complainant. The case was
referred to the Domestic Violence Unit of the police, who after investigations
charged the appellant with the offences at the Circuit Court, Ashaiman.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The appellant
pleaded not guilty at his first appearance in court on 20 February 2019. On his
next appearance on 4 March 2019, the case was adjourned to 18 March 2019, and
that on that day, the record show that accused changed his plea, and pleaded
guilty simpliciter to both charges. On 22 March 2019, based on the guilty pleas
to both charges, the learned trial judge sentenced the appellant: the first
count to 18 months imprisonment, and on the second count to a fine of 70
penalty unit[s] or in default go to jail for 6 months.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Just within a week
after the sentence, that is, on 28 March 2019, appellant, acting through his
lawyer filed the appeal; the sole ground is that “the sentence [imposed by the
learned trial judge] is too harsh”. At the first meeting on the appeal<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Solomon%20Nana%20Acheampong%20v%20Rep%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a>, perceiving
the simplicity of the issues raised in the appeal, as well as the limited time left
for the long vacation, I resolved to summarily dispose of the suit, and so
called upon the lawyers in the matter to orally argue out the suit at the
subsequent sitting – 26 July 2019. Learned senior state attorney, nonetheless
filed his written arguments on 24 July 2019. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Arguing the appeal
orally as agreed, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal
was not meant to questioning the legitimacy of the sentence, but that they are
pleading with the Court to reduce the sentence. Learned senior state attorney
oppose the appeal on the basis of the written address. Counsel argu</main>