THE REPUBLIC vs. FRANCIS AKYEREFI [2022]DLHC11633

Date	2022-02-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. F22/8/22
Citation No.	[2022]DLHC11633

HIS LORDSHIP DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.

GEORGE ESSIFUL-ANSAH ESQ FOR APPELLANT.

MAARA PELPUO FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2022]DLHC11633
																																						<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>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FRANCIS AKYEREFI<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<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. F22/8/22&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:
17TH FEBRUARY 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>GEORGE ESSIFUL-ANSAH
ESQ FOR 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;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:normal;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">MAARA PELPUO FOR THE
RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP 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;In
this criminal appeal, the Appellant herein is appealing against the decision of
the Circuit Court, Takoradi dated 18th January, 2021.<o:p></o:p>The
Appellant was charged with one count of careless and inconsiderate driving
contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Offences Act, 2004 (Act 683) as
amended by Act 761 and Negligently Causing Harm contrary to section 72 of the
Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Per the court record, Appellant pleaded
guilty with explanation to Count One and guilty simpliciter to Count Two. He
was convicted on his own plea and sentenced to a fine of one hundred penalty
units on Count One and three (3) years imprisonment in hard labour on Count
Two.<o:p></o:p>Aggrieved
by the decision of the court, Appellant has filed the instant appeal praying
the court to set aside the conviction and sentences. The grounds of appeal as
captured in the petition of appeal are as follows:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the sentences imposed by the said trial
court on the Petitioner were harsh and excessive.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial court erred when it held that the
convict’s explanation amounted to no defence.<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the trial court erred when it convicted
the Accused person based on bare statement by the prosecution concerning DVLA
report which was not attached to the Charge Sheet and Facts of the Case.<o:p></o:p>I
shall proceed to tackle the issues in controversy.<o:p></o:p>CONVICTION OF THE APPELLANT ON COUNT ONE<o:p></o:p>In
the instant case, the Appellant pleaded guilty with explanation to Count One.
The position of the law is that an accused is convicted on his own plea if the
explanation is consistent with his guilt provided the facts presented by the
prosecution also support the conviction. A plea of not guilty is entered if the
explanation is inconsistent with guilt. See section 199(4) of the Criminal (and
other Offences) Procedure Act, 1960 (Act 30). See also, Republic v Bright
[1974] 2GLR 12 and Gundaa v The Republic [1989-90] 2GLR 50.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it held that the
Appellant’s explanation does not amount to a defence. That the Court erred when
it failed to enter a plea of Not Guilty for the matter to be gone into.<o:p></o:p>In
response to Count One, Appellant gave the following explanation:<o:p></o:p>“I
plead with the court to forgive me. It will not happen again. The explanation
is that on the way, my steer got locked and I had to go left and then right
because the road is bad. In the process my steer got locked and my brake also
failed and that was why the accident happened. I plead with the Court.”<o:p></o:p>In
assessing the explanation given by the Appellant, the trial court held as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“The
explanation has been taken but the DVLA report denie</main>