REPUBLIC VRS. NARH (CR/0358/2023) [2025] GHAHC 7 (12 February 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CRIMINAL COURT 4, HELD IN ACCRA ON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025, BEFORE HER LADYSHIP, COMFORT KWASIWOR TASIAME, JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT. CASE NO.: CR/0358/2023 THE REPUBLIC - RESPONDENT VRS. SPAYN NARH @ STUTTGART WOODS - ACCUSED PERSON ACCUSED PERSON -PRESENT _____________________________________________________ JUDGMENT The accused was arraigned before this Court on 27th July, 2023 and charged with the following offences: Sexual Extortion under section 66(1)(a) and (b) of the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038), Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images under section 67(1) of Act 1038, one count of Publication or Sale of Obscene Material contrary to section 280 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), and three counts of Unlawful Possession of Narcotic Drugs contrary to section 37(1) of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019). BRIEF FACTS 1 | P age The brief facts of this case are that the Complainant, Nuertey Rachael Dede Yomor, is a 19-year-old Senior High School graduate and lives with her parents at Kpone, while the accused, Philip Spayn Narh @ Sharon Stuttgart Woods is a 26-year-old plumber and hair stylist, residing at Bawaleshie near Dodowa with his father. In the latter part of the year 2020, the Complainant was introduced to the accused by a girl known as Delphine whom she met via Telegram, an online social media platform. The suspect created the impression that he was a female German-American by name Sharon Stuttgart Woods, who was into financial services and had come to Ghana to do business. He further portrayed himself as a philanthropist, with a passion to help black girls achieve their dreams and could assist the Complainant travel abroad to further her education at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT. The Complainant disclosed her interest in IT, stating her ambition to become a web developer with a long-term goal of creating Artificial Intelligence. In December 2020, the accused informed the Complainant that ‘she’ had arrived in Ghana and arranged to meet with the Complainant at a hotel in Dodowa in order for them to get acquainted with each other. On 8th December 2020, while on her way to the said location, the accused sent her a text that “she” had been summoned for an urgent meeting and that the Complainant should wait at “her” driver’s brother’s place at Bawaleshie. Unknown to the Complainant, the said driver’s brother was actually the accused. When she arrived at the said location, the accused, sent another message, compelling the Complainant to have sex with the said driver after which it would be recorded, to test her loyalty, as a pre-condition to assisting her in getting a place at MIT. The accused coerced the Complainant into having sex with him and he recorded it. The complainant, distressed by the circumstances surrounding her loss of virginity, severed ties with the accused and deleted her Telegram account following his demands for further sexual acts. The complainant created another account and the accused who was determined to satisfy his insatiable desires, reached out to the Complainant under the name “Valquez Rodeo De Mel” stating that he was being paid 2 | P age to leak her sex video but decided to reach out to her and assist her since he claimed he knew her and her family. He advised that the Complainant meet with Stuttgart Woods and settle matters with “her”. The accused started blackmailing complainant and demanded to have anal and oral sex with her twice a month or leak the sex video via a YouTube channel for porn, WhatsApp and Telegram if she refused. On 5th January 2021, the accused published the Complainant’s nude photos and sex video on a link on Telegram known as ADULT HOUSE, a porn channel, and sent the link to the Complainant to watch. The Complainant after watching became worried and suicidal, confided in her best friend who advised her to go back and agree to “her” terms. On 12th January 2021, the Complainant went to the accused to plead with him to speak to “Stuttgart Woods” to delete the nude photos and video but he became violent and forcibly had oral sex and vaginal sex with her, recorded the barbaric act and continued to blackmail her. The Complainant who persistently had suicidal thoughts opened up to her coding tutor who noticed that she was disturbed. The coding teacher helped her to report the matter to the police. The accused was arrested and upon a search conducted in his room, two mobile phones containing the Complainant’s nude photos, sex videos, a quantity of seeds, dried powdery and liquid substances suspected to be narcotic substances were retrieved. The suspected narcotic substances were sent to the Police Forensic Laboratory for testing and on 30th June 2021, the report from the Forensics Laboratory indicated that the powdery substances had a net weight of 95.13grams, the seeds had a net weight of 1.10 grams, and there was also a substance that contained 73.37g of suspected narcotic substances. They all tested positive for cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug. Based upon the facts of the case, accused was arraigned before this court for trial. BURDEN OF PROOF It is a cardinal rule that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Section 13(1) of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323 provides as follows: 3 | P age “In any civil or criminal action the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” And in section 11(2) it is provided that; “In any criminal action the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to a fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt”. What then is the term 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Authorities are of the view that, it refers to evidence that satisfactorily proves the accused committed the offence. In conceptualizing what reasonable doubt is, the dictum of Lord Denning in Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372 is instructive. He explained that; “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence; “Of course, it is possible but not the least probable ’ the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice…” I will like to look at the case for the prosecution to find out whether they were able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The prosecution called four witnesses to establish the charges against the accused. PROSECUTION’S CASE The 1st prosecution’s witness (PW1), Complainant was RACHAEL DEDE YOMOR. She testified that she is a 19-year-old Senior High School graduate who lives at Kpone, near Tema in the Greater Accra Region with her parents. That in the latter part of the year 2020, she was introduced to Stuttgart Woods by a friend called Delphine, via a social media platform, Telegram. Delphine made her believe that Stuttgart Woods was a female American philanthropist who could assist her travel abroad to further her 4 | P age education. Stuttgart Woods also confirmed this information adding that ‘she’ was a German-American who had come to Ghana to do business and was also into financial services. Stuttgart Woods promised to assist her to further her education abroad as she was a philanthropist committed to assisting ambitious black girls to achieve their dreams. That when she asked for Stuttgart Woods’ picture, ‘she’ asked her to go through ‘her’ (Stuttgart Woods) profile pictures which she did and saw pictures of a white woman. Seeing this, she was convinced that the woman in the photographs was the same person she was chatting with. That she told ‘her’ she was into IT, Web Development and Programming and wanted to be a Full-Stack Web Developer and also create artificial intelligence. That ‘she' seemed quite impressed about her goal and offered to help her further her education at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Boston, USA. Complainant testified further, that she informed her elder brother about it. That she was ecstatic about the offer because she really wanted to study IT in the USA since they are well equipped in that field. That Stuttgart asked about the projects she had done so she sent ‘her' a picture of a front end of Google which was a mini project. That ‘She’ suggested that she does a complete project which would be catchy for her admission process. That she decided to create a search engine specifically for medical advice and health related issues. She informed ‘her' about it and ‘she’ said it was a very thoughtful project. PW1 put her Micro verse software development course on hold to work on a search engine project (“Doc Eye”) to impress Stuttgart Woods, who promised to assist her. Stuttgart initially appeared impressed, claiming to show the work to her contacts and testing the witness ’s English proficiency. Stuttgart mentioned contacting her friend Sam in the USA and government officials in Ghana to assist with her admission to MIT. The complainant researched MIT requirements and believed she was qualified. Stuttgart upon her alleged arrival in Ghana, invited her to meet ‘her’ at a hotel but later redirected her to the house of ‘her’ driver’s brother. According to PW1, Stuttgart demanded that she sends nude photos and have sexual relations with the driver’s brother as a “test of loyalty.” That when she told Stuttgart that she was not interested in that, she ordered 5 | P age her to leave and go home as ‘she’ was not going to help her. That she hesitated but later agreed out of desperation. That she went to the driver’s brother who sexually assaulted her, recorded the act, and took nude photos. That after the act, Stuttgart told her that her virginity made her “naive” and unsuitable for life in the USA. That later she got to know that Stuttgart is the same person as the driver’s brother, as he began blackmailing her with the nude photos and videos. According to the complainant, she was coerced to comply with further sexual demands to prevent the release of the nude pictures and videos. Complainant testified further that, an individual named Valquez Rodeo de Mel (also Stuttgart in disguise) contacted her, saying he is a blogger who has been paid to leak her nude photos and sexual videos online. That she received threats of public defamation and extortion from Valquez. That Valquez asked her to return to Stuttgart and yield to ‘her’ demands so that her pictures will not be leaked. That she returned to Stuttgart’s house to plead for the material to be deleted. She was again sexually assaulted and recorded. That on 5th January, 2021, Valquez de Mel sent her a link to ADULT HOUSE to which pictures of the sex videos were eventually leaked, and threats to release the videos to other media platforms as a result of her refusal to yield to his subsequent sexual demands. That the release of the videos and the threats caused her severe emotional distress. That she became depressed, isolated, and even contemplated suicide. That she eventually confided in her coding tutor, who encouraged her to report the case to the police. That she reported the case to the police. That a meeting was arranged with the accused for his arrest. That on February 2, 2021, the accused, identified as the same person behind both Stuttgart Woods and Valquez Rodeo de Mel, was arrested. After the testimony of the complainant, accused person refused to cross-examine the Complainant, stating categorically that he had no questions for her. The law is that, if a witness testifies and the opponent consciously fails or refuses to cross-examine him, the court may consider the evidence as admitted by the opponent. Please see the case of Quagraine v. Adams [1981] GLR 1 479 CA. However, there is 6 | P age exception to this rule in respect of evidence given which an illiterate party with no knowledge of cross-examination fails to cross-examine upon. Please see the case of Mante V Botwe [1989-90] 1 GLR 479. The accused person before me is not a lawyer. He engaged a lawyer who was not regular at proceedings. Later in open court, this lawyer intimated to the court that he would file for recall of the complainant for cross- examination but he failed to do so. Another lawyer was engaged who also intimated to the court he would file for recall of the complainant but also failed to file any application. That being the case, I am of the view that the Accused person admitted the evidence of the complainant. PW2 was KWAME ADJEKUM. He testified as follows; that, he is a software engineer and coding tutor who lives at Adenta in Accra. That PW1, Nuertey Rachael Dede Yomor reached out to him to teach her how to code websites. That during one of their lessons, he noticed that she was not concentrating on the lesson and was not her usual bubbly self, so after the lesson, he inquired from her if she had a problem. That PW1 did not open up to him. That a few days later PW1 needed programming tutorials so he asked her to come for some videos from his place in Adenta. That when PW1 came to his place in Adenta, after he gave her the videos, he revisited the issue about the fact that she was unusually quiet during their last tutorial. That initially she held back and said there was nothing wrong. That he probed further and she eventually opened up and started narrating her ordeal by stating it on paper as she appeared to be embarrassed to inform him orally. That she stated that she had been raped by someone who recorded the sexual activity and circulated it on social media and she further stated that the person was blackmailing her with the video. That he asked her further questions and realized it was a serious issue so he called a friend of his, whose father is a policeman and informed him about PW1’s ordeal. That upon hearing the issue, he instructed them to come to the CID Headquarters to lodge a complaint. That the following day, they went to the Police Headquarters and met one Chief Superintendent William Sedoame of the CID Headquarters. That he asked them to go 7 | P age to the Adenta Divisional Headquarters. At the Adenta Divisional Headquarters, two police officers accompanied them to the accused person’s residence in Bawaleshie. That when they arrived, he waited outside while the police and PW1 went to arrest the accused after which they proceeded to the CID Headquarters where his statement was taken. PW 2 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the Accused, Mr. Jacob Noye. This is what ensued during cross-examination; Q: In paragraph 5 you said during one of your lessons in January 2021 you noticed she was not her usual bubbly self, is that not so? A: PW1 is someone who is more lively and in a span of one month with frequent meetings, I could match her energy she used to put in that that day I realized she was not herself. Her concentration was off. Q: But when you enquired of her on that day why her concentration was off, she told you she was fine, not so? A: Yes, she did. Q: I am therefore putting it to you that she had not lost concentration as you alluded to. A: That is false. PW3 was Detective Chief Inspector, (D/C/INSPR.) ASIEDU ODEI (REV.) He testified as follows; that he is a Chief Inspector, stationed at the Homicide Unit of the CID Headquarters. He had been working in the Police Service for 31 years. He investigated a case involving the Complainant, PW1, Rachael Dede Yomor Nuertey, who was tricked and exploited by the accused. The accused pretended to be a German- American woman named Stuttgart Woods online. The accused promised to help the Complainant to further her education abroad but instead manipulated and 8 | P age blackmailed her. That PW1 met “Stuttgart Woods”/Accused online in 2020 through a mutual contact. That accused claimed to be a philanthropist helping ambitious young women and promised to assist PW1 with her studies abroad, gaining her trust. Stuttgart arranged a meeting for 7th December, 2020 but rescheduled it to 8th December 2020, claiming ‘she’ was going to supervise elections. Instead of showing up on the said date, she directed PW1 to another location, claiming she needed to “prove her loyalty” by engaging in sexual acts with someone and sending nude photos and videos thereafter to Stuttgart. Under pressure and being subjected to threats, PW1 complied out of desperation but was later blackmailed. He stated that PW1 informed him that Stuttgart kept on demanding for more sex and she kept giving excuses. That eventually, PW1 was told that if she did not succumb, her sex video would be leaked. She pleaded with her several times as she did not want to be disgraced but Stuttgart’s mind was made up. That someone called Valquez Rodeo de Mel sent her a text message informing her that he was one of the bloggers who had been paid to leak her nude photographs and sex video and that he owns a YouTube channel and some other sex channels on Telegram and WhatsApp. On 5th January 2021, Valquez Rodeo de Mel sent her a link to ADULT HOUSE to watch pictures of the sex video being leaked and threatened to release the video to other social media platforms as a result of her refusal to yield to the subsequent sexual demands as people were bargaining to buy her sex video. On the 12th of January, 2021, PW1 went back to alleged Stuttgart’s driver’s brother to ask him to plead that her nude photos and video be deleted but the guy ignored her plea, fondled her and asked her to suck his penis and out of fear, she complied. He also forcibly had vaginal sex with her. He also made another recording of the sexual activities and leaked the videos he recorded again and it started trending on social media. That the complainant became depressed and also considered suicide several times. He testified further that, she was afraid to open up to anyone for fear of being judged. That with the help of a PW2, PW1 reported the case to the police. On 1st February 2021, when she reported the matter, she was advised to arrange a meeting with the guy the next day in order for him to be arrested. After the arrest of the 9 | P age accused, a search was conducted in his room. The search revealed two mobile phones containing PW1’s nude photographs, sex videos, a quantity of seeds, dried powdery and liquid substances suspected to be narcotic substances were retrieved. It was revealed that the accused, Philip Spayn Narh, was the same person using the account names, Stuttgart Woods and Valquez Rodeo de Mel. Upon interrogation, the accused admitted the offences against him and claimed ownership of the suspected narcotic substances, explaining that he was a hairdresser and uses the narcotic substances for hair cream. That complainant’s father was invited to the police station with his daughter the following day. A medical form was later issued for the Complainant to attend a government hospital for examination. That the suspected narcotic substances were sent to the Police Forensic Laboratory for testing and on 30th June 2021, the report from the Forensics Laboratory indicated that the powdery substances, the seeds and shea butter stuffed with plant material, suspected narcotic substances all tested positive for cannabis sativa, a narcotic drug. PW3 tendered the following exhibits which were all admitted and marked as follows: Exhibit A is a brown envelope containing powdered substance and seeds. Exhibits B is a gallon containing substances with label Lab. No. 54/2021 and B1 is a bottle containing a liquid substance labelled No. 54/2021. The report from the Forensic Laboratory was marked as Exhibit C. The police also retrieved two mobile phones from the accused which were forwarded to the cybercrime unit for examination and report. The investigation caution statement dated 2nd February, 2021, was admitted and marked as Exhibit D. Further investigation caution statement dated 12th June, 2023 marked Exhibit E. Charge statement of accused person dated 4th February, 2021 was admitted and marked as Exhibit F. He also obtained a further charge statement from the accused dated 12th June, 2023 marked as Exhibit G. PW3 stated that all the statements were written by the accused person himself. After PW1’s medical report, dated 2nd February, 2021 written and signed by Dr. Fiona A. N. Twumasi, a Medical Officer of the Tema General Hospital was admitted and marked as Exhibit H. A court 10 | P age order dated 26th June 2023, directed at the Cybercrime Unit was secured for the retention and examination of the accused’s phones was admitted and marked as Exhibit J. Accused cross-examined PW3. The following are parts of what ensued during cross- examination of PW3 by the accused: Q: I suggest to you that the relationship between the complainant and I was solely mutual. A: It was not mutual. Q: I put it to you that it was mutual. A: It was not mutual. PW4 was CPL. CHRISTIAN TSE DEH. He testified that he is a Detective Corporal stationed at the Child Protection Digital Forensic Laboratory and Cybercrime Unit of the CID Headquarters, Accra. He has been a Police Officer for nine (9) years. He testified that he is a Digital Forensic Analyst who focuses mainly on identifying, acquiring and processing data recorded electronically and then prepare reports on them which can be used in criminal investigations or as evidence in cybercrime cases. He testified further that on 21st July, 2023 a request for Digital Forensic Examination was made through the CID Administration to their unit. That the request came with a court order and his unit head referred it to him. The request was for conducting a digital examination on two mobile phones, a Sony Ericsson C5303 Xperia SP and a Samsung Galaxy J3 Prime mobile phone, belonging to the accused. He tendered the two phones in evidence. The Sony Ericsson was admitted and marked as Exhibit K while the Samsung phone was admitted and marked as Exhibit K1. According to the witness, the request was to look for nude pictures, videos, social media communications that is SMS, WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook and any other relevant information. That when he received the phones in the lab, he photographed and 11 | P age physically examined them. That since the phones were off, he had to power them and put them in a device called a Faraday Box to charge the phones and prevent any external signals or interactions and to preserve the data on the phones, to prevent it from being accessed or controlled remotely. He charged and put the phones in flight mode before using forensic tools specifically the Cellebrite UFED to extract the contents of the mobile phones and Cellebrite Physical Analyzer to analyze the data. PW4 testified further that, he completed a report on 22nd March, 2024. That he put details of his findings on a pen drive which contained media files that is the pictures and videos and then detailed chats of Telegram and WhatsApp chats and screenshots and audios and voice notes. This report was admitted and marked as Exhibit L. The pen drive was admitted and marked as Exhibit M. Some of the contents of Exhibit M were played in open court. His report revealed that there were fifty-two thousand one hundred and ninety-three (52193) images, two hundred and ninety-one (291) videos, two hundred and thirty-eight (238) audios and 307 chats retrieved from the Samsung phone, Exhibit K1. At page 5 of Exhibit L, he stated that six (6) out of the 291 videos appears to be the Complainant. While three thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight (3788) images, sixty-three (63) videos, three hundred (300) audio and twenty-five (25) chats were also retrieved from the Sony Ericsson, Exhibit K. He added that 5 out of the 63 videos are videos of the complainant (pages 48-49 of Exhibit L). He testified that the Samsung phone contained three Telegram accounts namely; Yu Dum Fuk with a Telegram ID number 1088165031, Valquez Rodeo de Mel with Telegram ID 1382502308 and the third one with the name Ann Marie with telegram ID 1074901778. He also uncovered six nude videos. He explained that the account name Valquez Rodeo de Mel posed as a blogger who claims to work with some magazines and newspapers, movie porn productions and also makes pornographic materials for sale. He testified that Valquez in a conversation mentioned that he had 6 sex videos of a certain Rachael and has been contacted by a woman in the USA to publish them. Ann Marie was also coercing a certain Rachael to have sexual acts and 12 | P age have them recorded and that the same Ann Marie was also coercing another Telegram account named Delphine to send her nude pictures. He confirmed that he found some of the images retrieved from the Samsung phone were published on Telegram and five of the nude videos were shared or transferred from the Samsung phone to the Sony Ericsson via the App, xender. The Sony Ericsson contained five videos featuring an individual identified as the complainant, Rachael. According to PW4, he obtained a photograph of the Complainant from the investigator which he used as a point of reference. He added that there were nude videos of several other young girls as well as old besides the videos of the Complainant. He stated that the Yu Dum Fuk account sent messages to a Telegram account named Qwuff with the ID - 1094597777. He added that Yu Dum Fuk claimed to have a porn channel for leaking nudes and expressed an interest to collaborate with Qwuff but Qwuff did not respond to any of the messages. PW4 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused. Counsel seemed to suggest that PW1 was never coerced into having sex with the accused neither was there any publication of her nude videos or photos. Below are excerpts of his cross-examination; “Q: The (ii) of page 18 you said Ann Marie insisted that the said Rachel should make time and meet an unknown person referred to as he in the chat, is that not so? A: That is so. Q: In (iii) you said Rachael was being coerced by Ann Marie to have sex with the said unknown person so that her sex tape would not be leaked, is that not so? A: That is so. Q: And then in (iv) you said Rachael subsequently agreed to meet the unknown person and "fuck" as ordered by Ann Marie to make the blogger Valquez Rodeo de Mel remove Rachael Sex tape, is that not so? 13 | P age A: Yes. Q: I am putting it to you that all these chats you retrieved from Telegram were between the accused person and the victim in this case. A: Yes. Q: And you will agree with me therefore that the obscene materials and videos were not published apart from these two persons. Is that not so? A: That is not so. Q: And therefore, the obscene videos and images were not published to any third parties for the purpose of public exhibition or for public consumption. I am putting it to you. A: Back to the figure 11, file path showing that figure was shared on telegram. When you look clearly at the image there you can see it was sent to a certain name Fiifi Collins, so that suggests it was shared. Q: I am putting it to you that what you are saying and from figure 11 it does not give any indication that the said video was shared with one Fiifi Collins. A: I mentioned the file path. Before any file can be found in such a folder on any device it suggests that it was transferred or shared. Therefore, this image in question on the phone was found in a folder as you can see the telegram messenger folder. So, on that basis I can tell you that it was shared. Q: This file path you mentioned was retrieved from the phone of the accused person, is that not so? A: Yes. 14 | P age Q: And it was retrieved at the time when the phone had no internet connection, is that not so? A: That is so. Q: I am putting it to you that there was no way you could verify that the said images and videos were shared with one Fiifi Collins. A: The files or the data retrieved from the phones were intact as I received it. I mentioned in the beginning of my statement that the phones when we receive them, we put them in a device called faraday box to prevent contamination (nothing would be added and nothing would be taken out) so everything I retrieved from the phones were already on it as I received it. Q: I am putting it to you that the accused person never coerced the victim to engage in sexual acts with him. A: From the chat between Rachael and Ann Marie on page 18, Rachael user name was represented with love emojis, so in the chat between Ann Marie and Rachael, Rachael was asked to meet someone and have sexual intercourse with the person and that would prevent her sex tape from being leaked. On page 24, I highlighted a portion of the chat "so now you do what I say, you don't get leaked". This is from Ann Marie. So, with this information it suggests Ann Marie has something on Rachael so she has to do what she says. Again, on page 26, I also highlighted certain portions of the chat where Rachael said "the important thing now is for the guy to adjust his time then I can go and fuck for you". Another section that I highlighted from the chat, and that is from Ann Marie "then I can ask the bloggers to remove your sex tape too". If you look at page 30, I highlighted another portion Ann Marie said "Rachael no games ... remember I sit here in US and you do not have the right connections to harm me". So, the information I put out right now are the reasons why I said Rachael was being coerced. So, the sex videos and the 15 | P age transcriptions clearly tell us that she has to do the act to prevent her sex tape being distributed or published. Page 46 paragraph 61134 (v), it was heard in a voice note that Rachael said to a friend the sex she had with person was torture. So, the voice note in question is labelled 4_5814285511371524630 which I provided on the pen drive.” At the end of prosecution’s case, this court ruled that accused person had a prima facie case to answer and ordered him to open his defence. A prima facie case is a strong evidence sufficient to link the accused person to the commission of the offence charged that warrants the calling on the accused to give his version of the story. See Amartey v. The State [1964] GLR 256, Gligah & Another v The Republic [2010] SCGLR 870, Dexter Johnson v The Republic [2011] SCGLR 601 and Kwaku Frimpong alias Iboman v The Republic [2012] 45 GMJ 1 S.C. It is a basic principle of law that in a criminal trial an accused person bears no burden to prove his innocence. In the case of C.O.P v Antwi 1961 GLR 408, The supreme court held as follows: “The fundamental principle underlying the rule of law are that the burden of proof remains throughout on the prosecution and the evidential burden shifts to the accused only if at the end of the case for the prosecution an explanation of the circumstances peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused is called for. The accused is not required to prove anything: if he can merely raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt, he must be acquitted”. THE CASE OF THE DEFENCE The accused person testified that he met the complainant on Telegram, a social media platform. That on Telegram chat group he expressed his liking for PW1. He testified that the communication ended shortly after but they later reconnected in the same group under different usernames, and he tried to remind her of their earlier conversation. That after brief exchanges, they stopped talking again. According to him, the Complainant/PW1 initiated contact again, and their conversations became 16 | P age more casual, revolving around group matters. Over time, the two became closer after PW1 expressed her aspiration to become an IT expert. According to the accused, their first in-person meeting was consensual, during which he proposed a romantic relationship, and the Complainant accepted. That after intercourse, the Complainant refused to leave, saying she wanted a break from her home life. That they met two more times, with the second meeting being initiated by the Complainant to discuss something. That during the third meeting, the Complainant arrived with two policemen to arrest him. The accused person emphasized that their interactions and meetings were consensual. Accused person was cross-examined. Under cross-examination, he denied every allegation including all the admissions he had made in his caution and charge statements. It must be noted that accused person wrote his own statement. Below are parts of the cross-examination: “Q: You posed as a female German-American Philanthropist under the fictitious name Stuttgart Woods who was willing to help black girls achieve their full potential. Is that not so? A: No Q: Indeed, you uploaded the pictures of a white woman on your profile in order for you to look the part that you were playing as a German - American philanthropist. A: Yes, I had a photo of a model on my profile but not with the sole intention to play mischievous games. Q: You got to know of her interest in IT and feigned interest in her educational advancement. A: No. 17 | P age Q: I put it to you that you promised to help her further her education at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in USA. A: No. Q: I put it to you that in your bid to appear even more interested you advised her to undertake a project that would arouse the attention of the administrators of MIT. A: No. Q: In your Exhibit D dated 2nd February, 2021 which was read or portions of which were read to this court at the last date, you admitted that you had sex with the victim, Rachael and you published same on Adult House, a porn channel on Telegram, I put that to you. A: Yes, we had sex as lovers but I did not publish anything on any porn channel or telegram. Q: You also shared the sex video of the complainant with someone called Fiifi Collins per Exhibit L page 15. A: I don’t know who Fiifi Collins is and did not share any file with him. In Exhibits D, which is accused person’s investigation caution statement, dated 2nd February 2021, the accused stated that “Racheal didn’t know that the personality she was attached to was abstract but upon her arrival, I told her I had a meeting to attend and directed her to a friend to usher her in. It was during this time I noticed the desperation she depicted and I made a remark of ingrate. And she assured me she wasn’t an ingrate and for that reason is ready to do anything to prove. That was when I insinuated she had sex to prove and she responded in affirmative.” Parts of exhibit ‘D’ are “We had sex twice and the second time was when she told me she can’t be having sex. I reminded her of her sacrifice and that I had genuinely wanted to help.” Accused further stated in exhibit D “when she told me she did not want to have sex 18 | P age with me anymore, I got carried away and told her what about her nudes and she forfeited them saying I can do as I please with them because she doesn’t want me around anymore”. “I then met an administrator of a channel that posted porn. He claimed he knew Rachael and did not believe and wanted to see. So, I also sent a piece of PW1’s video to him which lasted not more than 20 seconds.” My intention is not for him to publish it in any way but he did.” This prompted me to send Rachael the link to the channel which made her anxious.” Before I had told Rachael if she didn’t agree to have sex with me, I was going to publish her nudes and make it go viral…” Exhibit K1, indicates that videos were shared with one Fiifi Collins. PW4 explained to the court that before any file can be found in such a folder the file path on any device suggests that it was transferred or shared. The images in question on the phone were found in a folder in a Telegram messenger folder showing that it was shared. This confirms that not only did the accused share the sex videos and photographs on Adult House, but he also shared with an individual known as Fiifi Collins. Under cross- examination, the accused also denied knowing Fiifi Collins whom from the forensic analysis on his Exhibit K1 contained in Exhibit L, it was confirmed that he had shared the sex video and nude photographs of PW1 on Adult House and with Fiifi. Furthermore, in Exhibit F, accused person stated, “The name I used was Stuttgart Woods, an American and a female who said to assist the complainant to acquire a scholarship to study abroad.” The accused denied all the above statements found in his caution statement that was written by him personally when he entered the witness box, took the oath and testified. Prosecution witnesses testified that Accused used multiple identities to lure PW1 into his home, coerced her into sexual acts, recorded the acts, published the videos and images on Adult House and shared them with one Fiifi Collins. The prosecution argued this conduct amounted to sexual extortion. The accused maintained that all interactions were consensual and denied coercing PW1 or publishing any explicit material. 19 | P age In accused person’s charge statement, Exhibit F, dated 4th February, 2021 he also admitted publishing the obscene photos and videos on Telegram which he claimed could only be found joining with a channel link called Adult House. He further stated that he published them in order to give the Complainant reason to want to have sex with him again and also due to series of anxiety episodes. In that Exhibit F, accused person states; “I am guilty of the charges levelled against me and am ready to undo my mistakes which is to delete what publication was done into adult house and also immediately exit the channel as proof that when pardoned I shall not go back to such life and act. Also, I plead guilty even though ignorance of the law is no excuse but since the charges levelled against me is mainly the publication of Rachael’s, I am willing and confess to delete every material posted into the inactive channel at once and also provide a heartfelt apology to the complainant.” In his further caution (Exhibit E) and further charge statements (Exhibit G) which he wrote over two years after the incidents, he relied on his caution statement dated 02/02/2021 (Exhibit D) and charge statement dated 4/02/2021(Exhibit F). In the case of Asare v the Republic (No. 3) [1964] GLR 804, it was held that where there is evidence to show that an accused person relied on or adopted his earlier statement, that fact must be deemed to be an admission by the accused that his said earlier statement was voluntary. See Also Duru v The Republic [2014] 71 GMJ C.A. A confession statement is a statement by the accused which, when taken together with other facts and circumstances, constitutes an admission of the commission or participation in the commission of an offence. When admitted in evidence, a confession statement will require no further proof of its contents before being relied upon. After all, the words of the accused person himself provided the strongest evidence against him. In the case of Cpl. Ekow Russel vrs. The Republic [2016] DLSC2800, it was held that: “A confession is an acknowledgment in express words, by the accused in a criminal charge of the truth of the main fact charged or of some essential part of it. By its nature 20 | P age such statement if voluntary given by the accused person himself, offers the most reliable piece of evidence upon which to convict the accused. It is for this reason that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that what is given as a confession statement is voluntary and of the accused person’s own free will without any fear, intimidation, coercion, promises or favours”. The learned State Attorney in her closing address submitted as follows; This was the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Ofori v The State (1963) 2 GLR 452 where it was held that “a free and voluntary confession of guilt by an accused person, if it is direct and positive and is duly made and satisfactorily proved is sufficient to warrant a conviction without any corroborative evidence”. The learned State Attorney submitted that, accused person is not a truthful witness having admitted the offences in his caution statement and denied all that is borne in his caution, further caution and charge statements only shows that he is not to be believed. She supported her assertions with the following cases: that in the case of Gyabaah v The Republic (1984-86) GLR it was held that “a witness whose evidence on oath is contradictory of a previous statement made by him whether sworn or unsworn is not worthy of credit and his evidence cannot be regarded as being of any importance unless he is able to give a reasonable explanation as to the inconsistency”. Also, in the case of Yaro v The Republic (1979) GLR 10-22 it was held that; “A previous statement which was in distinct conflict with his evidence on oath was always admissible to discredit or contradict him and it would be presumed that the evidence on oath was false unless he gave a satisfactory explanation of the prior inconsistent statement. A witness could not avoid the effect of a prior inconsistent statement by the simple expedient of denial”. Furthermore, in the case of Heyne Frank v The Republic, criminal appeal no. H2/25/2010, 18/11/2010 unreported, R.K. Apaloo JCA stated that; 21 | P age “We take the view that the appellant was not a truthful witness in the court below and his credibility is questionable and we cannot digress from the dictum of Aikins JSC in The Republic v Munkaila (1999-1997) SCGLR 455 when the learned judge held that “surely when an accused person takes refuge in telling lies before a trial court, the only inference of his behaviour is that he has a guilty mind and wants to cover up”. As submitted by the learned State Attorney, what actually transpired between the accused and PW1 is what the accused wrote in his statements, Exhibits D and F which he relied on in Exhibits E and G, especially because he gave his caution and charge statements at a time the incident was fresh on his mind. It is clear that his evidence before this court was just afterthoughts, meant to throw dust in the eyes of the court. This court holds that the evidence of denial of any offence by the accused person on oath is an afterthought and not believed by this court. COUNTS 1 & 3 – SEXUAL EXTORTION Section 66(1) (a) of the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038) provides; “A person shall not threaten to distribute by post, email, text, or transmit, by electronic means or otherwise, a private image or moving images of the other person engaged in sexually explicit conduct, with the specific intent to (a) harass, threaten, coerce, intimidate or exert any undue influence on the person, especially to extort money or other consideration or to compel the victim to engage in unwanted sexual activity” Section 66(1) (b) also states; “(b) actually extort money or other consideration or compel the victim to engage in unwanted sexual activity.” Subsection (3) states; “For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), an intimate image may include a depiction in a way that the genital or anal region of another person is bare or covered 22 | P age only by underwear; or the breasts below the top of the areola, that is either uncovered or clearly visible through clothing.” Section 11 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29, defines intent as follows “where a person does an act for the purpose of causing or contributing to cause an event, that person intends to cause that event, within the meaning of this Act, although in fact, or in belief of that person or both in fact and also in that belief, the act is more likely to cause or contribute to cause the event”. The ingredients of sexual extortion, the prosecution would have to prove are the following; That; (i) The accused, harassed, threatened, coerced or exerted undue influence on the victim. (ii) The act involved the use of a computer system, computer network or electronic communication such as email, messaging apps or social media platforms, to carry out the extortion. (iii) The accused acted with the intent to harm, exploit, or control the victim for personal gain or gratification. (iv) That the threats or coercion caused the victim to either comply with the demands or suffer harm as a result of resisting. (v) The accused must have knowingly and intentionally engaged in the threatening or coercive behaviour. According to the learned State Attorney, evidence was led through all the prosecution witnesses: PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 that PW1 was being threatened and coerced into having sex with the accused. 23 | P age PW1’s evidence is that Stuttgart kept on demanding for more sex and she kept giving excuses. Eventually, Stuttgart told her that if she did not succumb, her sex video would be leaked. PW1 further stated that someone called Valquez Rodeo del Mel sent her a text and informed her that he was one of the bloggers who had been paid to leak her nude photographs and sex video and that he owns a YouTube channel and some other sex channels on Telegram and WhatsApp. That Valquez Rodeo de Mel also told her that people were bargaining to buy her sex video and therefore advised her to go back to Stuttgart and yield to ‘her’ demands so that her pictures would not be leaked. Also, it is PW1’s case that on 26th December, 2020 she reached out to Stuttgart to find out what ‘her’ demands were and ‘she’ told her to have both vaginal and anal sex with the driver’s brother, twice before her nude photographs and sex video would be removed. Furthermore, Stuttgart gave her a date to go back and have sex with the guy but she refused to go as she was afraid that another video would be leaked. Stuttgart then started threatening her and she kept giving excuses not to go. PW1 added that on 5th January 2021, Valquez Rodeo de Mel sent her a link to ADULT HOUSE to watch pictures of the sex video being leaked and threatened to release the video to other social media platforms as a result of her refusal to yield to the subsequent sexual demands. The learned State Attorney submitted that as already stated above, the accused refused to cross-examine PW1. The law is that where a party fails to cross examine a witness on evidence he proffers in examination-in-chief, his evidence is deemed as admitted by that party. The law is also well settled that where a party fails to cross examine another party on an issue, it is presumed that that party has accepted what the other party testified to as a fact. In the case of Fori v Ayirebi [1966] GLR627 it was held that; 24 | P age “When a party had made an averment and that averment was not denied, no issue was joined and no evidence need be led on that averment. Similarly, when a party had given evidence of a material fact and was not cross-examined upon, he need not call further evidence of that fact.” I am of the view that accused himself not being a lawyer may not understand that failure to cross-examine means admission of the testimony proffered by an opponent or accuser. However, accused person was ably represented but lawyers who informed the court that at one point that they were going to file an application to recall the Complainant but failed to do so. So ,therefore the evidence of the complainant is taken as having been admitted by the accused. PW4 also gave a detailed account of threats and coercion of PW1 by the accused posing under the different personalities in his forensic analysis captured in his report in Exhibit L and through the videos and audios found on Exhibit M. Some of such texts can be found at pages 23-27, 30 of Exhibit L. From the videos and photos on Exhibit M [the pendrive] which was played in the court room, as well as the images in Exhibit L, figure 12 &13 as published in Adult House, it is clear that PW1’s vagina and breasts are showing. Figure 12 shows the breast and nipple and figure 13 shows the vagina of the complainant and the penis of accused in complainant’s vagina. As submitted by the learned State Attorney, in the case of The Republic v Cephas Agbebianu Anani, Criminal Appeal No. H2/05/2021, dated 11 MAR 2022 the accused was charged with Defrauding by false pretences, Extortion, Publication of Obscene Material and a General Provision for Cyber Offences contrary to sections 131 (1), 151 and 280 respectively, of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and Section 123 of the Electronic Transaction Act, 2008 (Act 772). He was found guilty on all counts and was convicted. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, he appealed to the Court of Appeal. On appeal, the Court, presided over by Janapare A. Bartels- Kodwo (Mrs.), J.A. held that “by his act or request of demanding for sex and later cash 25 | P age the Appellant intended to cause fear and panic in the complainant for her to accede to his request else he publishes her nude photographs. See s. 11 of Act 29 supra. He intended the natural consequences of his act which will cause her to either pay up or engage in sexual escapades with him. To prove that he meant business he sent Edna’s nude photos to instill the fear of the devil in her. To crown it all he went beyond the mens rea to display the actus reus and collected the Gh¢100 from her. He then turned up in the hotel room with every will, might and purpose to carry out his intensions. The court was right in coming to the conclusion that he had extorted money from the Complainant. The conviction was in order”. I think this case is on all fours with the case before me. Accused published the sex video and nude photographs of the PW1 on Adult House and sent her the link to instill the fear of the devil in her and compel her to return to him for more sex. (vi) The act involved the use of a computer system, computer network or electronic communication such as email, messaging apps or social media platforms, to carry out the extortion. The evidence before this court is that the accused person took video and still pictures of his sexual acts with PW1. His Samsung Galaxy J3 Prime and Sony Ericsson mobile phones were subjected to forensic examination. The Sony Ericsson and Samsung mobile phones are in evidence as Exhibits K and K1. The Samsung mobile phone contained 521923 images, 291 videos, 238 audios and 307 chats of a number of both young and older women. 6 out of the 291 were videos of PW1. The Sony Ericsson phone also contained five sexually explicit videos featuring PW1. The forensic report on these phones was also tendered in evidence as Exhibit L. A four-minute nine seconds video of sexual acts between the accused and PW1 from a video file named 20210112_140843.mp4, created on 17/01/2021 at 04:36:52 (UTC+0) can be found on Exhibit M [ the pen drive]. 26 | P age Another video with file name 20210112_144321.mp4 created also on 17/01/2021 at 04:38:24 (UTC+0) shows the accused involved in sexual acts with PW1. Indeed, in that video, the accused is heard saying “…if you raise your body again, I will use my fist on you. Keep quiet. Okay. So, if you raise your body again, I will use my fist on you …” In a third video created on the same date at 04:20:12 (UTC+0) with the video file named 20201208_150528.mp4 in Exhibit M. The accused who was having sex with PW1 can be seen and heard yelling and sounding very aggressive towards PW1, instructing her on what to do, to open up and how to position herself in order to have his way with her. A fourth video, which lasted 2 minutes 34 seconds, with video file named 20201208_115323.mp4 created also on 17/01/2021 at 04:24:18 (UTC+0) shows the accused engaged in sexual acts with PW1. The fifth video named 20201208_121256.mp4 was created on 17/01/2021 at 4:29:44 (UTC+0) A sixth video with file name 2147483648_210266.mp4 created on 28/01/2021, which lasted for 42 seconds is also one that shows sexual acts between the accused and PW1. Furthermore, aside the videos, transcripts of the conversation between the accused and PW1 are captured from pages 7-14 in Exhibit L. Out of the 52193 images, 66 sexually explicit images of PW1 were retrieved from the accused person’s Samsung phone. PW4 explained that the images are screenshots from the sex videos between the accused and PW1. Again figures 11 and 12 at pages 15 and 16 of Exhibit L shows two of the images located in the Telegram Messenger folder, PW1 is clearly seen performing oral sex on accused in the figure 11, while in figure 12 she is seen naked lying face up on a bed. These images were shared with Fiifi Collins via Telegram. Figure 13 is also a clear depiction of a penis inserted into a vagina, this image as PW4 explained is believed to be PW1 and the accused which was tagged #Adult House 100. 27 | P age Prosecution submitted that it matters not that the complainant was aware that their sex acts were being recorded as in her mind, the intended recipient was Anne Marie. The complainant may have consented to her sex act being recorded but she did not give her consent for it to be shared with Fiifi Collins or published on Adult House. And I agree with the Prosecution. (vii) The accused acted with the intent to harm, exploit, or control the victim for personal gain or gratification. The evidence presented by the prosecution demonstrates that the accused acted with intent to harm, exploit, or control PW1 for personal gain or gratification. Under section 11 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), intent is determined through a person’s conduct rather than their internal state of mind, which cannot be directly ascertained. The accused posed as 'Valquez Rodeo de Mel,' a purported blogger affiliated with magazines, newspapers, news apps, and pornographic film production, sent PW1 a link to her sex video, which he had published on Adult House, a pornographic Telegram channel. He then demanded additional sexual acts. Further, while posing as 'Anne Marie' (ID: 1074901778), he created posts under the name 'Anon promo bot' (ID: 1396429208. The evidence establishes that the accused coerced the Complainant into further sexual acts, during which he recorded additional videos. The accused demonstrated both the necessary intent (mens rea) and the physical act (actus reus) of extorting sex from PW1. That the threats or coercion caused the victim to either comply with the demands or suffer harm as a result of resisting. From pages 18-23 of Exhibit L, there are conversations between PW1 and the accused posing as Ann Marie. The complainant starts by begging and negotiating with Ann Marie to arrange a suitable time for her to go and have sex with the accused, posing as the driver’s brother. Then from pages 22-29 further conversations captured are as follows; 28 | P age Complainant: “so I won’t have to have sex with him and will stop leaking me?” (Figure 24) Ann Marie: “yes, but for your stubbornness sake I said no” - (figure 25) Complainant: “so what now” - (figure 25) Ann Marie: “So now you do what I say. You don’t get leaked” - (figure 25) Ann Marie: “You refused, I just ask the bloggers to do as they wish” - (figure 26) Complainant: "I am trying to do what you are saying” - (figure 26) Complainant: “So please talk to him about the time cos I want to go there today” -(figure 26) Ann Marie: “Okay” - (figure 27) Ann Marie: “what I’m saying is now you fuck for me” - (figure 27) Ann Marie: "And so long as you do it you don’t have to be famous” - (figure 27) Complainant: “I’m already famous” - (figure 28) Complainant: “okay” - (figure 28) Ann Marie: “well you’re not a pornstar yet” - (figure 28) Ann Marie: “but if you want to be, we can skip to that” - (figure 29) Complainant: “I see” - (figure 29) Complainant: “the most important thing now is for the guy to adjust his time then I go fuck for you” - (figure 29) Ann Marie: “No more games!” - (figure 30) Ann Marie: “Then I can ask the bloggers to remove your sex tape too? -(figure 30) Complainant: “Yes” - (figure 30) 29 | P age Also, at page 30, figure 38, the following transpired; Ann Marie: “And Rachael, no games…remember I sit here in the US and you do not have the right connections to harm me” Complainant: “okay” Ann Marie: “And remember my anal” Complainant: “hmm ok” From the above chats and the entire evidence led by the prosecution, I hold that threats or coercion caused the Complainant/PW1 to comply with the sexual demands as the accused succeeded in having sex with her and further demanded more sex. (viii) The accused must have knowingly and intentionally engaged in the threatening or coercive behaviour. The evidence led by the prosecution through PW1, PW2 and PW4 show that the accused knowingly and intentionally engaged in the threatening and coercive behaviour towards PW1. The actions taken by the accused posing as Stuttgart Woods, Anne Marie, Valquez De Mel, as Anne Marie’s driver’s brother and indeed as himself Spayn Narh all involved acts of harassment, threats, coercion and undue influence on PW1 which culminated into offence of sexual extortion. I therefore hold that the Prosecution has proved all the elements required to prove the offence of sexual extortion. COUNT 2 - NON-CONSENSUAL SHARING OF INTIMATE IMAGE Pursuant to section 67(1) of Act 1038, “A person shall not, with intent to, cause serious emotional distress, intentionally distribute or intentionally cause another person to distribute the intimate image or prohibited visual recording of another identifiable person without the consent of the person depicted in the intimate image and in respect of which, there was a 30 | P age reasonable expectation of privacy both at the time of the creation of the image or visual recording and at the time the offence was committed.” Furthermore, subsections 2 and 3 state; (2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than three years. (3) For the purpose of this section, “serious emotional distress” includes any intentional conduct that results in mental reactions such as fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as physical pain. To constitute the offence of non-consensual sharing of intimate image the prosecution would have to prove that; (1) The accused must have distributed, published, or transmitted intimate images or recordings of another person. (2) The distribution must have been done without the consent of the person depicted in the images. (3) The intimate images must depict the person in situations where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as nudity, sexual activity, or private moments. (4) The accused must have acted intentionally or recklessly, knowing or having reason to believe that the distribution would harm the dignity, privacy, or reputation of the individual. (5) The offence must involve the use of a computer system, network, or electronic communication to share the intimate images. (6) The act must cause actual or potential harm, distress, or humiliation to the victim. 31 | P age The offence of non-consensual sharing of intimate image is synonymous with sexual extortion, in that both offences have very similar ingredients to prove, and same has been established above. The prosecution has proven that the accused person distributed, published or transmitted sex videos and nude images or photos of PW1 on Adult House, a porn channel and with one Fiifi Collins, without PW1’s consent. It can be inferred from the accused person’s actions that he intentionally and knowingly had a reason to believe that sharing, distributing or publishing complainant’s videos would harm her dignity, privacy and reputation. Indeed, the accused, posing as Valquez Rodeo de Mel, whose voice is heard clearly in some voice notes, particularly, one labelled 4_5814285511371524650 on Exhibit M, persuading a female, with the username Elma Lona, who knows complainant, to try and convince complainant to go back and give in to the demands (i.e. to have more sex) for the woman in the US (i.e. Ann Marie), in order for him to ask the bloggers to remove her first video and save her any further embarrassment. In that same voice note, the accused was also heard clearly stating that he has six sex tapes of Rachael and has been paid and contracted by a certain woman in the US to publish them. The accused claimed that complainant was his girlfriend meanwhile, was heard telling Elma Lona in one of the voice notes in Exhibit M that “Rachael koraa ne tw3 nny3 d3” in twi, meaning “Rachael’s vagina is not sweet” and that she should just persuade her to come for more sex for the video to be recorded. The counsel for the Accused person did not cross examine on the voice notes. Legally speaking it means admission of the fact that the voice notes were that of accused. It has been established and I so hold that the medium the accused used was his Samsung mobile phone to share the intimate images and they were shared via Telegram, a social media platform. PW2 testified that PW1 appeared to have been troubled as she was not her usual bubbly self in class and so he reached out to her and enquired from her what the matter was and that she appeared to have been too embarrassed to speak about her 32 | P age ordeal and so she wrote down on paper that someone had had sex with her, recorded it and was blackmailing her with the video. PW1’s evidence that the action of the accused caused her severe emotional distress and public humiliation. She became depressed, isolated, and even contemplated suicide. Furthermore, in an audio or voice note labelled 4_5814285511371524630 on Exhibit M, Elma Lona mentions that according to Rachael, what has happened between her and the accused was not just sex but it was rather a torture. Accused himself in his caution statement Exhibit D stated that the sexual act caused complainant anxiety. I hold that accused’s acts caused actual and potential harm, distress, and humiliation to the complainant. Complainant could not come to open court which is a public place, she demanded to give evidence in camera because of the shame and humiliation. It is my finding that the prosecution has successfully proven the count of non- consensual sharing of intimate images by the accused. He is convicted as charged. COUNT 4 - PUBLICATION OR SALE OF OBSCENE MATERIAL Per section 280 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29, “a person who publishes or offers for sale an obscene book, writing, or representation commits a misdemeanour.” The prosecution submitted that the accused person was heard bragging about selling 5-minute nude videos on porn sites for between US$100-US$500. It is clear that the accused person’s motive for publishing the nude photos and videos of the Complainant on Adult House was for the purposes of making money. It is the case of the prosecution that since the accused person was charged with one count of publication or sale of obscene material, it is imperative that we address the court on the part regarding sale under this count. There was overwhelming evidence adduced 33 | P age by the Prosecution through PW4, to establish that indeed, the accused was into the business of selling nude videos on porn sites. In The Republic v Cephas Agbebianu Anani supra, the Court of Appeal held that, “the forwarding of Edna’s nude videos which are obscene photography to the complainant was publication of her representation (this being an image, picture or video which is sexually explicit) and the law does not countenance that. Thus the conduct of the accused fell short of the law, and the trial court did not err in convicting him” therefore that the forwarding or sharing of PW1’s sex videos and nude pictures which are obscene photography with Fiifi Collins and to Adult House, was publication of PW1’s representation and the law should therefore not countenance that. However, I am of the view that the charges as under count three has catered for the charges under Count 4. He is therefore acquitted and discharge on count 4. COUNTS 5, 6 & 7 - UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF NARCOTIC DRUGS The accused was also charged with unlawful possession of narcotic drugs contrary to section 37(1) of Act 1019. section 37(1) provides that “A person who, without lawful authority, proof of which lies on that person, has possession or control of a narcotic drug for use or for trafficking commits an offence.” 37(2) also provides that, a person who commits an offence in subsection (1); (a) “for use is liable on summary conviction to a fine imposed in accordance with the penalty specified in the Second Schedule and an additional term of imprisonment specified in that Schedule if the fine is not paid.” Per the Second Schedule, one who contravenes section 37(2)(a) is liable to a fine of not less than two hundred penalty units and not more than five hundred penalty units. In default, a sentence of not more than 15 months. The ingredients of possession were laid out by the Supreme Court of Ghana in the case of George Bonsu Benjillo v The Republic 1998/99 SCGL 112 as follows; 34 | P age (a) The accused must be in physical possession of the drug or he must have physical control of the drug. (b) The accused must have knowledge of the nature of the thing possessed. This knowledge need not be actual, 'it can also be inferred or imputed. That the knowledge of the nature of the thing possessed can be inferred from his conduct. The prosecution is therefore to prove that the accused person not only had physical possession of the narcotic drug but that he also knew the nature of the drug he possessed. Furthermore, in Ellis Tamakloe v The Republic (Suit no:13/2/2009, (Judgment dated 17th February 2010) and Logan & Another v The Republic [2007-2008] SCGLR, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must prove that; i. The accused person had custody and control of the drugs. ii. He knew of the nature of the drugs; iii. The purpose of possession was either for use or trafficking. iv. The accused had them without lawful authority. In order to obtain conviction, the prosecution must prove the following elements of possession of narcotic drugs, failure will lead to acquittal of the accused person. The ingredients are as follows; 1. The accused person had custody and control of the drugs. 2. He knew of the nature of the drugs; 3. The purpose of possession was either for use or trafficking. 4. The accused had them without lawful authority. i. Custody and Control 35 | P age Considering the first ingredient, the prosecution tendered the narcotic drugs (Exhibit A). They testified that accused person had custody and physical control of Exhibit A, that is, the seeds and powdery substances which tested positive for cannabis sativa which were retrieved from his room. Accused claimed ownership of Exhibit A, in Exhibits D, E, F and G which are his caution, further caution and charge statements and even in open court during cross-examination. During cross-examination of the accused on 6th November, 2024 this is what ensued; Q: At the time of your arrest, you had in your possession a black polythene bag containing dried cannabis sativa, didn’t you? A: … I had in my possession ingredients that I use for my hair food products that I am purposed to license and sell in the general market. Q: What ingredients did you have in your possession? A: In my possession, I had shea butter, extract from aloe vera and also the grinded seeds of marijuana which is the main ingredient in most hair foods in the market like chapter 2000 etc. The learned State Attorney submitted that, in the case of Osafo v The Republic [1993- 94] 2 GLR 402 it was held that the ingredient to be proved is possession and not ownership. In the instant case before the court, PW3 gave evidence that the narcotic substances, Exhibits A were found on the accused person’s room. In his handwritten statements and in open court, the accused admitted owning Exhibit A. He further confirmed that the substances were found in his room at the time of his arrest. The prosecution has argued that the accused’s possession of these narcotic substances was without lawful authority. I am of the view that prosecution has proved this element of custody and control of the offence of possession of narcotic drugs without lawful authority. ii. Knowledge 36 | P age Knowledge of the nature and quality of what he possessed. Under this ingredient, the prosecution ought to prove that; a) the accused person knew of the presence of the narcotic drug. b) the accused person knew the nature and quality of the drug possessed. Prosecution submitted that in the case of Bonsu alias Benjilo v The Republic [2000] SCGLR 112, the Supreme Court held at holding 4 that; “To prove the charge of illegal possession of a narcotic drug under section 2 of the Narcotic Drug (Control, Enforcement and Sanctions) Act 1990, (PNDCL236) it must be shown that the appellant not only had physical possession but also knowledge of the nature and quality of what was possessed, namely a narcotic drug, since physical possession without that requisite knowledge would amount to no offence. On those facts and certain inferences justifiably made therefrom by the Court of Appeal, the Court would conclude that the appellant had knowledge of the content of the parcel he possessed or received into his possession, namely that he knew that the parcel contained heroin…” In Osafo v The Republic supra, the Court of Appeal held that; “Although the appellant had no burden to prove his innocence, once he admitted that the drugs were found in his room but proceeded to exonerate his possession, he was obliged under the provision of section 11(3) of the Evidence Decree, 1975 (NRCD 323) to lead such evidence as to cast doubt on the case of the prosecution. In the circumstances, it was not enough for him to allege that the drugs belonged to someone else; he had also to establish that he did not know the nature and quality of the drugs. In the circumstance it was immaterial whether the drugs belonged to the appellant or to A because the gravamen of the offence under section 2(1) of PNDCL 236 was possession not ownership of the drugs. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to justify the trial tribunal's guilty verdict against the appellant.” The question of knowledge is also established from reasonable inferences that can be made from established facts. 37 | P age Section 18(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975(NRCD 323) provides that; “An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action.” Please see the case of Nyame v Tarzan Transport [1973] GLR8 also held that; In Kamil v The Republic [2011]1 SCGLR 300, the Supreme Court held in the head note that; “…thus there must be evidence establishing that the accused had the requisite mens rea or guilty knowledge or evidence from which it was reasonable to presume that the accused proved to be in possession well knew or ought to have known that the substance he possessed was prohibited drug.” The evidence given by PW3 and the caution statement of accused himself in Exhibits D, E, F, G and in open court is proof of the fact that he knew the content and quality of the marijuana that he possessed. I hold that what prosecution needs to prove is possession and not ownership. Accused person did not have a license to possess Exhibit A which is the marijuana. He explained that he was in the process of obtaining the license from the Food and Drugs Board and Standards Authority to license his product. The law is that you obtain the license before handling the drug. Assuming it is true that he was in the process of obtaining a license, then he had put the horse before the cart and is guilty of possession of the narcotic drug, cannabis sativa without lawful authority. He neither showed lawful authority for possessing the narcotic drug nor did he show possession obtained upon prescription as stated in Republic v Woahene [1967] GLR 599. In the case of Ellis Tamakloe and another v The Republic [2008] 19 MLRG 189, it was held that “The duty of the prosecution is to satisfy the court that a person so charged 38 | P age possesses the illicit drug without lawful authority, it then becomes the duty of the person charged to show that he had lawful possession of the drug. That lawful authority shall be the Minister of Health.” PW3 tendered in evidence Exhibit C, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report on the narcotic substances retrieved from the accused person’s room. The report indicated that all the plant substances retrieved from the accused person’s room, including the one stuffed in shea butter and the one in the pipe, all tested positive for cannabis sativa. The report indicated that the dried plant material in the black polythene bags weighed 39.84g, the plant material in the plain polythene weighed 54.15g and the plant material in the wooden smoking pipe was 1.14g, in total they added up to 95.13g and they all tested positive for cannabis. The plant material concealed in the shea butter had a net weight of 73.37g and it also tested positive for cannabis, the seeds that were also retrieved from the accused person’s room had a net weight of 1.10g which also tested positive for cannabis. I hold that prosecution has proven counts 5, 6 and 7. The accused person is convicted for the offence of possession of cannabis sativa, a narcotic substance of which he had knowledge and did not have lawful authority to possess. PLEA IN MITIGATION: HE IS A YOUNG PERSON, HE IS 26 YEARS, PRIME AGE, from engagements with him and his family, he is a bread winner to his father, he is not known to the court, giving the fact that he is yet to start life in the mane, I pray the court deals with him very, very leniently, if he is to be sentenced, then you deal with him in respect of the minimum established by law. PROSECUTION: Throughout the entire trials showed no remorse, delays in prosecution of this matter. Sexual extortion is on increase, young ones engage in sexual acts and either extort money or other sexual favours with them. they usually get away with it because, sometimes when such recordings are placed on social media, it is difficult to trace the offender. When accused phones were examined, it was not 39 | P age only the videos and photographs of the complainant that were found. Videos of women both young and old were found. We pray for harsh sentence to serve as a deterrence to these GEN Z generation who resorts to these degrading acts of women. They have no respect for women. Count one; [sexual extortion, section 66(1)(a) of cyber security Act 2020 I have considered all the following: 1. The plea of the learned counsel for the accused in mitigation 2. I have also considered the number of days’ convict spent on remand. 3. I have also considered the seriousness of the offence and taken into consideration the stance of convict denying the offence even though he wrote his statements and lack of remorsefulness before the court. The convict is sentenced as follows: Count one: The punishment section is section 66(4) of the Cyber Security Act, 2020 (Act 1038) it provides “A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than twenty-five years. Accused person is sentenced to 12 years IHL. Count two: [non-consensual sharing of intimate image] Section 67(2) of the Cybersecurity Act, 2020(Act 1038) provides “A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than three years. He is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Count 3: [Sexual extortion] section 66(1)(a) of cyber security Act 2020. 40 | P age The punishment section is section 66(4) of the Cyber Security Act, 2020(Act 1038) it provides “A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years and not more than twenty-five years. Convict is sentenced to 12 years IHL. Count 4: Convict is discharged on count 4. Counts 5, 6 & 7 is in respect of possession of narcotic drugs for use. Section 37 (2)(A) of Narcotic Commission Act, 2020 [Act 1019]; provides that “A person who commits an offence in subsection (1) (a) For use is liable on summary conviction to a fine imposed in accordance with the penalty specified in the second schedule “… Second Schedule provides a fine of not less than 200 penalty units and not more than 300 penalty units, in default not more than 15 months’ imprisonment. Count 5: he is sentenced to a fine of 200 penalty units and in default 10 months imprisonment. Count 6: he is sentenced to a fine of 200 penalty units and in default 10 months Imprisonment. Count 7: He is sentenced to a fine of 200 penalty units and in default 10 months Imprisonment. I have considered all the offences; the sentences are to run concurrently. This means he will spend 12 years IHL in all. I wish to express profound gratitude to the learned State Attorney for putting together great closing submission. (SGD) COMFORT KWASIWOR TASIAME (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) 41 | P age COUNSEL:1. NANA ADOMA OSEI FOR THE REPUBLIC 2.OBED WORDU HOLDING BRIEF FOR JACOB NOYE FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON REFERENCE • Section 13(1) of the Evidence Act 1975, NRCD 323 • Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372 • Quagraine v. Adams [1981] GLR 1 479 CA. Mante V Botwe [1989-90] 1 GLR 479. • Amartey v. The State [1964] GLR 256, • Gligah & Another v The Republic [2010] SCGLR 870, • Dexter Johnson v The Republic [2011] SCGLR 601 • Kwaku Frimpong alias Iboman v The Republic [2012] 45 GMJ 1 S.C. • C.O.P v Antwi 1961 GLR 408, • Asare v the Republic (No. 3) [1964] GLR 804, • Duru v The Republic [2014] 71 GMJ C.A. • Cpl. Ekow Russel vrs. The Republic [2016] DLSC2800, • Yaro v The Republic (1979) GLR 10-22 • Heyne Frank v The Republic, criminal appeal no. H2/25/2010, 18/11/2010 unreported, R.K. Apaloo JCA • Fori v Ayirebi [1966] GLR627 • The Republic v Cephas Agbebianu Anani, Criminal Appeal No. H2/05/2021, dated 11 MAR 2022 • In The Republic v Cephas Agbebianu Anani supra, 42 | P age • George Bonsu Benjillo v The Republic 1998/99 SCGL 112 • Ellis Tamakloe v The Republic (Suit no:13/2/2009, (Judgment dated 17th February 2010) and Logan & Another v The Republic [2007-2008] SCGLR, • Osafo v The Republic [1993-94] 2 GLR 402 • Bonsu alias Benjilo v The Republic [2000] SCGLR 112, • Osafo v The Republic supra, • Section 18(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975(NRCD 323) • Nyame v Tarzan Transport [1973] GLR8 • Kamil v The Republic [2011]1 SCGLR 300 • Republic v Woahene [1967] GLR 599. • Ellis Tamakloe and another v The Republic [2008] 19 MLRG 189, • Section 66(4) of the Cyber Security Act, 2020 (Act 1038) • Section 67(2) of the Cybersecurity Act, 2020(Act 1038) • Section 37 (2)(A) of Narcotic Commission Act, 2020 [Act 1019]; 43 | P age