THE REPUBLIC vs. ANGELA EZE [2020]DLHC10760

Date	2020-07-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: CR 708/2016
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10760

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE CHARLES EDWARD EKOW BAIDEN

AMELEY AGYEMAN ESQ. FOR THE REPUBLIC RAPHAEL ALIJINA ESQ. FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON

[2020]DLHC10760
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGELA EZE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, 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;">

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">AMELEY
AGYEMAN, ESQ., FOR THE REPUBLIC RAPHAEL ALIJINA ESQ., FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE CHARLES EDWARD EKOW
BAIDEN <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;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<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The
Accused Person has been charged with the offence of possessing narcotic drug
without lawful authority contrary to Section 2 (1) of the Narcotics Drugs
(Control, Enforcement And Sanctions) Law, 1990( P.N.D.C.L 236)<o:p></o:p>The
facts presented by the Prosecution in support of the case are that, on the 23rd
of September, 2016 the Accused, Angela Eze, a Nigerian National was on board a
vehicle travelling from Aflao to Accra. At the Dabala Customs checkpoint, as a
routine all passengers were asked to alight. The Accused's two handbags which
were in her possession
were searched&nbsp; and&nbsp; under her personal&nbsp; belongings, 8 com pressed slabs of dried
leaves suspected to be cannabis sativa were found in the first bag and an
additional 3 slabs were found in the second bag. According to the Prosecution,
on interrogation the Accused Person claimed ownership of the substances which
were subsequently handed over to the Ghana Standards Authority for further
examination and&nbsp; testing. A field test of
the substances proved positive for cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug. In her
caution statement, the Accused Person stated that she was sent by one Kwame of
Adabraka to fetch the drugs from a man in Aflao called Apedo Sunday Edem, for a
fee of GH¢
100.00. Analysis of the exhibit, with a net weight of approximately 9,420g
tested positive for the principal ingredient in cannabis sativa
(tetrahydrocannabinol). The Accused Person has subsequently been charged with ·the
offence of possessing narcotic drug without authority and arraigned before this
Court where the Accused Person has pleaded not guilty to the charge leveled
against her.<o:p></o:p>Pursuant
·to Article 19(2) (c) of the 1992 Constitution:<o:p></o:p>'' A person charged
with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or
has pleaded guilty.”<o:p></o:p>In
this regard, Section 11(2) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD323), places a burden
on the_ Prosecution to produce sufficient evidence to prove all the charge preferred
against the Accused person, so that on all the evidence, a reasonable mind
could find the existence of
the £act beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the standard of proof required of the
Prosecution is to prove the guilt of the Accused Person beyond reasonable
doubt on every element of the offence, especially as tl1e Accused Person
has pleaded 11ot guilty. (Emphasis added). All that the law requires of the
Accused Person is to produce st1fficient evidence so that a reasonable mind
could have a reasonable doub·t as to guilt. In this regard Section 11(3) of
NRCD 323 provides that:<o:p></o:p>''In a criminal
action the burd en of prod ucing evidence, when it is on the accu sed as to any
fact tl1e converse of which is essential to guilt, requires the accused to
produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could
have a reasonable doubt as to guilt.''<o:p></o:p>In
the case of COP vs ISAAC ANTWI (1961)
GLR 408 at 412 the Court held that:<o:p></o:p>''The law is well
settled that the burden on the accused if there is any burden at all on the
accused, it is anything but to raise a reasonable doubt.''<o:p></o:p>In
short, the combined effects of Article 19(2)( c) of the 1992 Constitution and
Section 11(2) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) are that the Prosecution has
both the legal burden to prove every element of the charge as well as the
evidential burden to adduce evidence that will sustain every element of the
offence charged. In the case of OTENG vs. THE STATE [1966] GLR 352 at 354 the
Supreme Court held that:<o:p></o:p>''The citizen too is
entitled to protection against the State and that our law is that a person