EMMANUEL CUDJOE vs. THE REPUBLIC [2021]DLHC11629

Date	2021-11-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO: F23/19/20
Citation No.	[2021]DLHC11629

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.

F.F. FAIDOO ESQ. FOR THE APPELLANT.

MENSIMA CRENTSIL {ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY} FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2021]DLHC11629
																																						<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" >EMMANUEL CUDJOE<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>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<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" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO: F23/19/20&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;DATE: 24TH NOVEMBER, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>F.F. FAIDOO ESQ. FOR THE APPELLANT.<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;">

MENSIMA CRENTSIL {ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY} FOR THE
RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.<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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This
judgment is in respect of an appeal against the judgment of the Circuit Court,
Takoradi dated 24th July, 2019.<o:p></o:p>The
Appellant was charged with the offence of defilement. He pleaded not guilty to
the offence and after a full trial he was convicted and sentence to fifteen
(15) years imprisonment in hard labour.<o:p></o:p>Appellant
is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence. He has consequently filed the
instant appeal based on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The evidence adduced by prosecution could not
meet the standard set by law to convict the appellant on a charge of
defilement;<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial court failed to consider the
defence of the Appellant;<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The sentence of fifteen years IHL is harsh
and severe in the circumstance;<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Further grounds will be filed on receipt of
the record of proceedings.<o:p></o:p>I
have examined the judgment of the trial court and the record of appeal; it is
apparent that the prosecution led cogent evidence to establish the ingredients
of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 (victim) gave a vivid description
of how the accused person defiled her and the sequence of event after the act.
She was resolute in her testimony and never wavered under cross examination.<o:p></o:p>The
testimony of all the other prosecution witnesses corroborated the testimony of
PW1. The trial court considered the defence of the accused in reaching the
conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, after a review of the evidence on record, the conviction is affirmed by
this court.<o:p></o:p>In
determining the appeal against sentence, the court is guided by the decision in
the case of Apaloo v Republic [1975] 1 GLR 156, where the court stated that the
principle upon which the court would act on appeal against sentence were that
it would not interfere with a sentence on a mere ground that if members of the
court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat
different sentence. The appellate court would only interfere with the sentence
when it was of the opinion that the sentence was manifestly excessive having
regard to the circumstances of the case or that the sentence was wrong in
principle.<o:p></o:p>In
the case of Kwashie v The Republic [1971] 1 GLR 493, it was held that the
determination of the length of sentence within the statutory maximum sentence
is predicated on the principle that the sentence imposed must bear some
relation to the gravity of the offence. The court further held in the case
cited supra that in determining the length of sentence, the factors which the
trial judge is entitled to consider are inter alia, the intrinsic seriousness
of the offence as well as the mitigating or aggravating circumstances such as
extreme youth, good character and the violent manner in which the offence was
committed.<o:p></o:p>