EFFAH VRS REPUBLIC (F22/4/2024) [2024] GHAHC 364 (24 July 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT WENCHI ON THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE MARIAM SALEH SINARE (MS) CASE NO. F22/4/2024 KWABENA EFFAH CONVICT/APPELLANT VS THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT PARTIES Convict/Appellant present LAWYERS ▪ Nana Tabiri Acheampong holding brief for David Rockson Tabiri Boahen for the Convict/Appellant. ▪ Comfort Kwakye Antwi for Republic/Respondent absent JUDGMENT The Convict/ Appellant who is aged 29yrs was charged with the offence of stealing contrary to section 124(1) of the criminal offences Act, Act 29 1960 as amended. The Convict/Appellant was arraigned before the District Magistrate Court Tuobodom on the 12/9/2023. He pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to 12 months custodial term. The appellant is dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence and has filed this appeal. 1 Grounds of Appeal His grounds of Appeal is premised as; The sentence is harsh and excessive. The written submission of the Appellant was filed on the 20/5/2024 and same served on the Republic for the Respondent on the 23/5/2024. But State Attorney who represented Respondent (Republic) did not find it necessary to file any response at all. The case was adjourned on several occasions to enable the Republic file their response but to no avail. The court is thus denied of the benefit of knowing the position of the Republic on the Appellant complaint against the sentence imposed on him. Given the fact that the instant Appeal relates to the sentence, I deem it incumbent to spell out the applicable legal principles governing sentencing. At the onset it is apt to establish the proposition that any Appeal be it against sentence or conviction or both is by way of rehearing. To this effect it is totally incumbent on the Appellate Court to consider the evidence on record and consider whether the trial Judge came to a right conclusion. The case of Bosso v The Republic 2009 SCGLR 420 is directly in point. The Esteemed Jurist, Georgina Wood CJ states as follows; “The rule that Appeals are by way of rehearing is not limited to Substantive Appeal only, but the sentences passed, provided an Appeal lies therefrom”. It must be noted that when an Appellant seeks to get the sentence metted out reduced, he must be aware that there exist some general sentencing principles. It is for the above reason that Ansah JSC, stated as follows in Mohammed Kamil vs. the Republic [2011] SCGLR at 300 2 “when an appellant complains about the harshness of a sentence he ought to appreciate that every sentence is supposed to serve a five-fold purpose, namely to be punitive calculated to deter others, to reform the offender, to appease the society and to be a safe guard to this Country”. Now with regards to general sentencing principles and taking full cognisance of the record of evidence and proceedings available to this Appellant Court. I am of the considered view that the trial Judge duly did not take into account all the relevant and applicable matters into consideration before meting out the sentence on the Appellant. I find as a fact that the Accused is a first time offender that is his first brush with the law. That he had no previous criminal record of a crime by a similar nature. The Judge must have taken into consideration that the stolen items were retrieved and handed over to the complainant. Also the Judge should have taken into consideration the Age of the Appellant and who must be given a second chance to reform. The Convict/Appellant did not waste the time and resources of the State. For the above reasons the Appeal Succeeds. I hereby review the 24 months Custodian Sentence. Appellant is to pay a fine of 200 penalty units or in default 12 months IHL. H/L MARIAM SALEH SINARE (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) 3