ISAAC YAW ATTRAM vs THE REPUBLIC [2020]DLCA16057

Date	2020-04-29
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H2/05/20
Citation No.	[2020]DLCA16057

SOWAH J. A. (PRESIDING)

SUURBAAREH J. A.

MENSAH-HOMIAH J. A.

GLORIA TEYE

[2020]DLCA16057
																																						<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" >&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ISAAC YAW ATTRAM<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, KOFORIDUA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<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;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO: H2/05/20&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: 29TH APRIL 2020<o:p></o:p>

GLORIA TEYE (ASSISTANT
STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE REPUBLIC/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>SOWAH
J. A. (PRESIDING), SUURBAAREH J. A., MENSAH-HOMIAH J. A.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MENSAH-HOMIAH,
(J. A.):<o:p></o:p>On 28th
August 2008, the appellant and two others were arraigned before the High Court,
Accra on two (2) counts of conspiracy to commit crime to wit robbery, and
robbery contrary to <a name="_Hlk38627533">Sections 23(1) and 149 of the
Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment)
Act, 2003 (Act 646).&nbsp; </a>On the charge
sheet, there was a third count of dishonestly receiving but that did not relate
to the Appellant. After a full trial, the Appellant and the two (2) others were
pronounced guilty of the offences, convicted and sentenced to thirty (30) years
imprisonment with hard labour on each count to run concurrently. This appeal
lodged pursuant to leave of this Court granted on 26th November,
2019 is against the sentence imposed on the Appellant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
facts of the case as presented by the Prosecutor are that, on 21st
July 2007 at about 1:30 a.m. the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
Accused Persons together with the 6th Accused Person (at large),
armed with a locally manufactured pistol and knives attacked the complainants,
Ato Korsah and Gifty Opoku in their residence at Hydrofoam Estates, Spintex
Road. The Accused persons inflicted wounds on the 1st Complainant,
Ato Korsah. The 2nd and 3rd Accused persons forcibly had
sex with the house help of the Complainants in turns. They also succeeded in
taking away the following items: Passport No. HO506222, eight (8) wrist
watches, four (4) mobile phones, US$400, GHC160, bottles of perfume, gold &amp;
silver jewelries including an engagement ring and a car key.&nbsp; Immediately after the operation, the Accused
Persons sold the 2nd Complainant’s passport to a certain lady who
replaced the picture of the true owner of the passport. Through investigations,
the Appellant and others were arrested.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;We
would comment on the form by which the Appellant initiated the appeal even
though that may be trivial. In as much as this court looks at the substance,
rather than the form, the error ought to be pointed out.&nbsp; The Appellant filed a “Petition of Appeal”
instead of a “Notice of Appeal”. The correct procedure is that an Appeal
against the conviction and/or sentence of the High Court to the Court of Appeal
is commenced by a “Notice of Appeal”. See rule 38 of the Court of Appeal
Rules, C.I. 19 and Form 1 or 2 set out in Part II of the
Schedule. We will however not be blinded by this technical glitch and
would go into the merits of the appeal in due course.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
Appellant appealed to this court on the sole ground that the sentence is harsh
and excessive. It is observed that additional grounds of appeal were filed by the
Appellant and witnessed by one Superintendent Adam of the Nsawam Prison
School.&nbsp; We find that the said additional
grounds of appeal are mere narratives and contain arguments that seek to draw
the court’s attention to the existence of mitigating factors which warrant a
reduction in the sentence imposed on the Appellant.&nbsp; Those additional grounds do not meet the requisite
standard in formulating grounds of Appeal, that is, the grounds must be concise
and not narrative or argumentative. Accordingly, the additional grounds of
appeal are struck out. <o:p></o:p>Having
struck out the additional grounds, there is only one ground of appeal which we
need to consider, and the issue which arises from the same is, whether or not
the sentence passed by the Court below is harsh and excessive.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
law is settled that an appeal is by way of rehearing. In <a name="_Hlk38627581">DEXTER JOHNSON v. THE REPUBLIC (2011) 2
SCGLR 601 at 606, the Supreme Court per Dotse JSC- Anin-Yeboah &amp;
Aryeetey JJSC Concurring (holding 3), explained thus: <o:p></o:p></a>