HOGARH VRS. REPUBLIC (CR/0051/2024) [2024] GHAHC 271 (13 June 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD IN ACCRA ON THURSDAY THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE MARY M.E YANZUH, JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE SUIT NO: CR/0051/2024 RICHARD HOGARH CONVICT/APPELLANT VRS THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT JUDGMENT The Appellant herein were arraigned before the Amasaman Circuit Court on the 9th of December 2021 wherein he was charged with the offence of robbery contrary to Section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 Act 29. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge after same was read and explained him in the Ga language. He was convicted on his guilty plea and sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment in hard labour. 1 It is against this sentence that the appellants filed the instant appeal on the 7th of November 2023 pursuant to leave of court granted on the 3rd of November 2023. The sole ground of appeal filed is that the sentence is harsh and sought the court for a reduction of sentence. FACTS OF THE CASE The case as presented before the court was that the complainant Grace Ponmak is a beautician and resides at Tabora while the accused person, Richard Hogarh is unemployed and lives at Kotobabi. The case of the prosecution was that on the 30th day of November 2021, at about 2:00am, accused person met the complainant and proposed that they have sexual intercourse which the complainant agreed to go to accused person's house at kotobabi. Upon reaching the gate of the house, accused person pulled a knife on the complainant and threatened her to surrender her mobile phone and money else he would stab her. The accused person succeeded in robbing the complainant of her infinix note 10 valued at GH¢1,200.00, Itel mobile phone valued GH¢70.00 and cash the sum of GH¢50.00 and her personal belongings and bolted. The prosecution added that on the 4th December 2021, the complainant identified the accused person/appellant at Lapaz at the same spot after he tried to engage another woman for a similar attack. Accused person was arrested immediately and brought to Tesano police station where a case was lodged. During investigation, the accused person admitted the offence in his caution statement. A search conducted in the room of the accused person led to the discovery of four mobile phones including complainant's two mobile phones. After investigation, the accused person was charged with the offence and arraigned before this court. RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL 2 Section 149 of Act 29 provides the law on robbery and it provides that: (a) “A person who commits robbery commits a first degree felony.” Robbery is a first degree felony and the punishment is prescribed in the Criminal (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Act 646). The minimum sentence for the offence is dependent on whether the offence was committed with an offensive weapon or offensive missile or not. It provides thus: “Whoever commits robbery is guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on trial summarily or indictment to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten (10) years and where the offence is committed by the use of an offensive weapon or offensive missile, the offender shall upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years.” What constitutes an offensive weapon or missile is defined in section 206 (3) of Act 29. Section 206 (3) provides thus: “For the purposes of this section (a) “Offensive missile” includes a stone, or a brick likely to cause harm if thrown (b) “Offensive weapon” means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it for that use by that person”. A person who commits robbery with the use of an offensive weapon or offensive missile shall be sentenced to a minimum of fifteen years imprisonment. A person who commits robbery without the use of offensive weapon or offensive missile shall upon conviction be liable to a minimum sentence of ten years. 3 The maximum sentence for robbery of any form is life sentence. Section 296 of Act 30 which is on general rules for punishment prescribes the maximum sentence for offences where the provision creating the offence does not specify it. Section 296(1) of Act 30 provides thus: “Where a criminal offence is declared by an enactment to be a first degree felony and the punishment for that offence is not specified, a person convicted of that offence is liable to imprisonment for life or a lesser term.” From the above therefore, the minimum punishment the appellant could legally face for the offence of robbery which per the facts of the case was with a knife which the law has described as an offensive weapon is fifteen (15) years. The trial judge properly conducted a pre sentence hearing and considered the fact that the appellant who is “33 years old did not waste the time of the court” and was also not known and then proceeded to consider the fact that the mobile phones were retrieved and the fact that the robbery was committed with the use of a knife amidst threats and proceeded to impose the minimum sentence as provided by the law which is fifteen (15) years. This court therefore cannot reduce the sentence beyond the minimum imposed by the law. To do any such thing would be committing an illegality. The appeal is for the above reasons dismissed. MARY M.E YANZUH J. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT COUNSEL: OSUMAN MOHADEEN FOR THE APPELLANT PRESENT DAVID BEECHEM FOR THE REPUBLIC/RESPONDENT PRESENT 4 5