Owusu v The Republic (BE/TN/HC/F15/07/2025) [2025] GHAHC 165 (28 February 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT TECHIMAN IN THE BONO EAST REGION ON FRIDAY THE 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY2025BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICEKWAME GYAMFIOSEI CASE NOBE/TN/HC/F15/07/2025 FELIXOWUSU :APPELLANT VRS THEREPUBLIC :RESPONDENT ========================================================================== JUDGMENT In the Circuit Court, Techiman the Appellant was charged with the offence of Careless and inconsiderate driving contrary to Section 31 of the Road Traffic Act 2004 ( Act 683) as amended by Act761 of 2008 and Negligently causing harm contrary to Section 72 of 1 the Criminal Offences Act 1960 [Act 29]. The Appellant pleaded guilty on both counts and was convicted on his own pleas and sentenced oncount one to a fine of 100 penalty units or in default 20 months imprisonment and in addition one year imprisonment . On count two he was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment in hard labour. The sentences were to run concurrently save the default sentence which was to run conservativelyshould thefine notbe paid. The Appellant was sentenced on the 26th of November 2024. He did not appeal the sentence within time and later came for leave to appeal which was granted by this court. The Appellant has appealed against the conviction and sentence, claiming the sentence was tooharsh A look at the submission made by counsel for Appellant reveals that he has abandoned the validity of the conviction and is only praying for a reduction of the sentence. Counsel submitted that the court did not consider the mitigating factors such as the age of the Appellant, being a first offender, early plea, showing of remorse and the fact that the offences were committed on the spur of the moment. It was conceded that sentences are passed according to law but a judge has a discretion to exercise within the limits of the law save where the sentence is fixed by law. In the view of counsel the mitigation factorsoughttobe takeninto account and prayed that thesentence be reduced. It is trite that the length of sentence to be imposed is at the discretion of the judge and such appeals are technically against the exercise of such discretion hence the 2 appellate court would only interfere with such sentence where the sentence is manifestly excessive having regard to all the circumstances of the case or where it is demonstrated that the sentence was wrong. See the case of APALOO vrs THE REPUBLIC[1975] 1GLR 156where the principle wasrestated as follows “The court would not interfere with the sentence on the mere ground that if members of the court had been trying the appellant they might have passed a somewhat different sentence. The court would interfere only when it was of the opinion that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the circumstances ofthecase orthatthe sentence waswrong inprinciple” As indicated supra the Appellant was charged with the offence of careless and inconsideratedriving contrary toSection3ofthe Road TrafficAct 683/2004 as amended by Act761/2008. It is provided by the said section asfollows “A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 200 penalty unitsor toatermofimprisonment not exceeding 40months orboth” Inrespect ofthis first count thetrial judgeimposed thefollowing sentence “Count one: Accused is fined one hundred penalty units and sentenced to a terms of imprisonment for 20 months in defaults of payment of a fine. Accused is liable toserve atermofimprisonment for oneyear.” 3 The trial judge did not even impose the maximum fine hence it is unfair to say that the punishment was excessive .In my view the trial judge exercised his discretion in favour of the Appellant when he sentenced the Appellant to a fine of 100 penalty units in additionto aprisontermofone year. In respect of count two the accused was charged with the offence of Negligently causing harmunder Section72ofAct 30.The said section stipulatesthat “ A person who negligently and unlawfully causes harm to any other person commits amisdemeanour.” Being a misdemeanour the sentence is regulated by Section 296(4) of Act 30 which also provides asfollows; “(4) Wherea crime, not being acrime mentioned in sub-section (5), is declared by any enactment to be a misdemeanour and the punishment for the crime is not specified, a person convicted thereof shall be liable to imprisonment for a term notexceeding three years.” Heretoothis is thesentence passed by thetrial judge “Count two: Accused is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 20 months in hard labourer(sic) By Court: All the sentences serve to run concurrently. The default sentence will runconsecutive with thecustodian sentence should the fine not be paid” 4 It could be seen that the trial judge again acted within the law when he passed this sentence. The concurrentand consecutive sentences were alllawful orders. As I have indicated counsel per his submission is not questioning the lawfulness of the conviction hence I need not go into same. The facts of the case show that per the conduct of the Appellant an innocent person lost his life. The sentences in my view are lawfuland need not be disturbed. The appealfails and same is accordingly dismissed. (SGD) KWAME GYAMFIOSEI JUSTICEOF THE HIGH COURT TECHIMAN. ROSE MMABILAANFO (ASA)FORTHE RESPONDENT KOFIIDDRISSAHFORTHE APPELLANT 5