REPUBLIC VRS. GYAN (B14/12/2022) [2024] GHACC 354 (18 December 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT ‘B’ KOFORIDUA IN THE EASTERN REGION OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA HELD ON WEDNESDAY THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 BEFORE HER HONOUR MRS. MATILDA RIBEIRO, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE ___________________________________________________________________ CC NO. B14/12/2022 THE REPUBLIC Versus. ERIC GYAN —————————————————————————————————————— JUDGMENT —————————————————————————————————————— The accused person was arraigned before the Court on two Counts. Namely; 1. Careless and inconsiderate driving contrary to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 2004 (Act 683) as amended by Act 761 of 2008, and 2. Negligently causing harm contrary to section 72 of Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). It is trite in our criminal jurisprudence as in this case, the accused person bears no burden to prove his innocence. It is trite that a person who accuses another of wrongdoing bears the burden to prove the guilt of the other person. The prosecution who accused the accused person of wrongdoing bears the burden to prove the guilt of the accused person by adducing sufficient evidence. And the standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is only after Prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence in proof of the guilt of the accused person that the accused person may be called upon to open his defence (See sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323, Tamakloe v. The Republic (2011) SCGLR 29, Frimpong @ Iboman [2012] Page 1 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 SCGLR 279), In which case the accused person will be required to adduce sufficient evidence to raise a doubt as to his guilt as provided under section 11(3) of NRCD 323 that, “In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the accused as to a fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires the accused to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could have a reasonable doubt as to guilt”. The provisions of the law under which the accused person has been charged provides as follows; Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act (Act 683 ) as amended by Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 761), provides that “ 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 two hundred (200) penalty units or a term of imprisonment not exceeding forty (40) months or both”. And Section 72 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) provides that “A person who negligently and unlawfully causes harm to any other person commits a misdemeanor” Section 76 of Act 29 defines unlawful harm as “harm is unlawful which is intentionally or negligently caused without any of the justifications mentioned in Chapter One of this Part” What then is prosecution to prove in this case? Per the offences charged, prosecution is to lead evidence to prove the following; For the offence of Careless and inconsiderate driving as per section 3 Act 683 as amended, prosecution must prove that; • The accused person was in charge of the vehicle Page 2 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 • That he drove the vehicle without due care and attention OR • without reasonable consideration for other persons On the offence of Negligently causing harm contrary to section 72 of Criminal Offences Act 29, that. • The accused person caused harm to a person • The harm was caused negligently and • The harm was unlawful Prosecution in proving its case against the accused person called two witnesses, one Ebenezer Opoku Boateng (hereinafter referred to as PW1) and the investigator of the case No. 44332 G/Sgt Simon Agbeve (hereinafter referred to as PW2). The case of the prosecution is that on the 29th December 2020 at about 9:40 a.m. the accused whiles driving Honda Civic Saloon car with registration number ER 1266-20 from the Koforidua Polytechnic Traffic Light, towards Capital View Hotel, Koforidua, drove without due care for other persons using the road, knocked down the victim; Alexander Ntow Frimpong and negligently caused harm to him. The incident took place on a section of the road near Koforidua Technical University. It is the contention of prosecution that the deceased at the time of the incident was crossing the road from the driver’s offside to the near side of the road. The first prosecution witness testified that the accused person who was driving at a top speed, by passed his vehicle and hit the victim. The victim’s right leg was cut off and according to the second prosecution witness he was rushed to the Regional Hospital –Koforidua where he was pronounced dead on arrival by the medical officer on duty. The said right leg was later found at a distance from the accident scene and sent to the same mortuary for preservation. On the 5th day of January 2021, Dr. Attipoe Gabriel of the Regional Hospital Koforidua performed a postmortem on the body in the presence of the Page 3 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 investigator, No. 44332 G/Sgt Simon Agbeve after the body was identified by Edmund Kumnipa, the deceased’s brother. The medical officer gave the cause of death as “exsanguination from traumatic amputation of the right leg and severe head injury due to road traffic accident”. The accused person reported to the police whereupon his statement was taken and charged. The investigator visited the accident scene with the accused person and a brother of the deceased on the 17th of January 2021 where measurements were taken, and a sketch of the accident scene was drawn, and all parties appended their signatures to same. Prosecution tendered through its witnesses the following exhibits; Exhibit A being the investigation Cautioned Statement of the accused person Exhibit B being postmortem report on the victim (deceased) Exhibit C being vehicle examination report from DVLA Exhibit D being a sketch of the accident scene Exhibit E being the charged caution statement of the accused person Exhibit F being a photograph of the deceased victim Exhibit G being statement of Ebenezer Opoku Boateng At the close of prosecution’s case, counsel for the accused person filed a submission of no case which was overruled by the Court with the reason that the submission by counsel that the evidence of prosecution witnesses had been so discredited during cross examination such that the Court should not call upon the accused person to open his defence was untenable and unsustainable by the evidence on the record as the prosecution witnesses cogently testified to what they know and or witnessed. The Court after evaluating the evidence adduced by prosecution including the exhibits tendered was of the view that the case for the prosecution provides prima facie evidence from which the guilt of the accused person could be presumed. The Court Page 4 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 therefore called upon the accused person to open his defence and as earlier discussed, his duty is only to raise a reasonable doubt in the evidence of the prosecution as to his guilt. (See The State v. Sowah and Essel [1961] GLR 743). At this stage the accused person is required to adduce sufficient evidence on the preponderance of probabilities to rebut the presumption of guilt raised by the prosecution’s case to avoid a ruling against him on the issue (See sections 11(1) and 17 of NRCD 323). According to the learned Jurist and retired Justice of the Supreme Court, S.A. Brobbey at page 152 paragraph 323 of his book Practice & Procedure in the Trial Courts and Tribunals of Ghana, 2nd Edition, the evidence of an accused person includes his statements to the police, his testimony in Court and that of his witnesses. In his defence, the accused person gave evidence by himself and called one Tweneboah Kodua (hereinafter referred to as DW1) as a witness. He tendered in evidence a photocopy of his driver’s licence which was admitted as Exhibit 1. On the 11th day of June 2024, the accused person stated in his oral evidence in chief that “on the 29th December 2020 I was driving my Honda Accord with Registration No. ER 1266 from the Poly traffic light heading towards Capital View. Whilst going, about some metres from the Poly bus stop, a taxi was beside me. That is, I was in the inner lane. All of a sudden, the taxi that was in the outer lane stopped and dropped the man (that is the victim) in the road on the left side of the vehicle. I did not know he will cross to the inner side where my car was. There was a metal barricade outside the road. When he dropped him, he tried to cross the road to the other side. When he crossed to the inner lane, I did not see him earlier because we were moving, and he (the victim) just dropped in the road. So, I tried to swerve him but unfortunately the passenger side of my vehicle hit him. I parked my car in the middle of the road, and I rushed to help Page 5 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 him. A nearby driver said he has just seen the body, so he called the police. Within about 5minutes the police were there. When the police came, we took him to the hospital after that I reported myself to the police. I found out that one of his legs was chopped off so when they brought my car to the police station, they found out that a metal under the headlight had chopped off the victim’s leg.” He testified further that there was no zebra crossing, and that the incident happened about 30 feet after the zebra crossing. That he was not careless and negligent on the day of the incident, it was not his intention to hit the victim with his care and that he did his best to avoid the incident by swerving to the pavement on his left side. Earlier in his investigation Cautioned statement taken on the day of the incident, the accused person stated that “It was on 29th December 2020 at about 9:40am. I was driving Hyundai (sic) Accord with registration number ER/1266/20 from Poly traffic light heading towards Capital View Hotel direction. On reaching a section of the road near Poly Technical University second gate did knock a male adult aged about sixty (60) years who was crossing from the driver’s offside edge to the near side edge of the road. A friend called police to the scene of accident and the body was rushed to the Regional hospital Koforidua where the medical officer on duty confirmed the said victim dead. I also reported myself to the police to assist investigation.” The defence witness Tweneboah Kodua’s (DW1) testimony was about same as the accused person. He testified further that the accused person was not speeding and that when the right side of the vehicle hit the victim, the victim fell on the bonnet of the vehicle before falling off to the ground. DW1 who claim to know so much about the accident, ended up introducing totally new evidence or facts inconsistent with that of the accused person, when his (DW1’s) testimony was subjected to cross Page 6 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 examination. The inconsistencies raised doubts as to whether he was present at the accident scene and his capacity and opportunity to perceive, recollect, or relate any matter about which he testified. (See section 80(2) of NRCD 323). Below is an excerpt of what transpired on the 21st day of August 2024 during cross examination of accused’s witness by prosecution. Q27: Were you a witness to the sketch of the accident scene? A: I was present at the scene when the sketch was done. I know all the police who were present. Q27: But you did not sign the sketch of the accident scene as a witness A: They did not let me sign anything. It was one Mr. Atiemo who came and made the sketch. Then at Q30: I put it to you that you are not being truthful to the Court. The investigator of the case testified in this Court that the only witness that surfaced in the case was Mr. Opoku Boateng. A: If this is what the C.I.D said, then it is not true. I was present when Mr. Atiemo came to the accident scene. He came with a body bag to convey the deceased body into the police pick up……….” Q31: I put it to you that you are not being truthful to the court because Atiemo was not the investigator of the case but rather Mr. Simon Agbeve. If indeed you were a witness, you would have given a statement to the police. At this point, DW1 paused for some seconds and smiled before answering the question. A: When the incident occurred, Mr. Atiemo is the head of MTTD, he was the person who came to conduct every activity concerning the accident and I was present at the scene of the accident. It was Atiemo who came and took measurements at the Page 7 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 accident scene to determine who was at fault. Whether the Honda or the taxicab. All this while I was present. The other name you mentioned whether the person is C.I.D, MTTD or whatever, I do not know” This evidence of DW1 is inconsistent with that of the accused person and the evidence on the record. The evidence before the Court shows that Mr. Agbeve (PW2) is the investigator assigned to the case, and he was the one who took the deceased to the hospital where he was pronounced death. This fact was confirmed by the accused person who testified that after the police came, he went with them to the hospital. The accused person never challenged the fact that PW2 was the investigator of the case, neither did he challenge the extent of work done by him. The evidence before the court also shows that the sketch and measurements were done on the 17th January 2021 by the investigator in the company and or presence of the accused person and a brother of the deceased and that the sketch was not drawn on the day of the incident, DW1 was not a witness to the sketch. These therefore raise questions about the credibility of DW1 and his evidence before the Court. He will at best be described as overzealous on behalf of the accused person. Not much weight can be attached to the evidence of DW1. From the evidence before the Court, the following facts are not in dispute; That it was the accused person who was driving the vehicle (Honda Accord with registration number ER 1266/20) that knocked down the victim on the 29th day of December 2020. That the victim was crossing the road from the driver’s offside to the nearside of the road when he was knocked down in the inner lane where the accused person was driving. That harm was caused to the victim and that the harm was caused by the accused person and or his vehicle. That the victim was pronounced dead on Page 8 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 arrival at the Eastern Regional Hospital and the cause of death was indicated as exsanguination from traumatic amputation of right leg and severe head injury. That the right leg of the victim was chopped off from the body as a result of the accident (Exhibit B) and same was found the next day at a distance of about 20 metres from the resultant position. The area of the incident is a built-up area with speed limit of 50km/h. It is not certain the speed level at which the accused person was driving. Per exhibit C (an examination report on the vehicle by the DVLA), the brakes, steering and electrical systems were found in good working order prior to the accident and the vehicle also suffered damage although the accused person whilst under cross examination disputed the extent of damage per the report (Exhibit C). During cross examination of the accused person on 19th August 2024, he admitted the content of the report (Exhibit C). He however disputed some content of the report to the extent that it was only the offside headlamp that got damaged and not both. He also denied the report that his offside fender was dented. That notwithstanding, it is not in doubt that the front bonnet, front bumper offside edge, both front and rear windscreens of the vehicle suffered damage as a result of the accident as admitted by the accused person. Interestingly according to Exhibit C, which was signed by Joseph Jenas, Technician Engineer of Koforidua DVLA, the vehicle was examined in the presence of the accused person and PW2 on 5th January 2021 and same admitted in evidence on 21st December 2022 without objection by the accused person and his lawyers. Neither was the content of Exhibit C challenged during the cross-examination of PW2 through whom it was tendered. I therefore see this late dispute of the content of Exhibit C by the accused person as an afterthought. Also, the fact that the brakes, steering, and electrical systems were found in good working order prior to the Page 9 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 accident can lead to a reasonable inference that the accident was not as a result of a mechanical fault. What is in dispute or the contention between the two sides is whether or not the accused person drove without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road thereby causing harm to the victim. On what constitutes reasonable consideration for other road users, the learned author P.K Twumasi explains at page 600 of his book Criminal Law in Ghana that “It implies that the driver must at all times take such precautions as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances for avoiding any danger or inconvenience to other persons using the road………There are certain situations or occurrences which a driver of a motor vehicle on a road must always anticipate and guard against. These include the likelihood all the time of running down persons walking on one or the other side or the middle of the road or crossing it….. Since accidents often occur on our road, a driver of a motor vehicle who fails to do all that is reasonably necessary to avoid them cannot escape liability for carelessness or negligence” At Page 602 he stated that “A person who is a driver or in charge of a motor vehicle is under a duty to drive with great care and attention or must have reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. The law requires him whilst using or controlling the vehicle on a road, to have a presence of mind and to keep a proper lookout so as to be able to observe all parts of the road ahead and behind him. Without which he would not be able to observe any object or person who comes into his way in sufficient time to enable him take necessary precautions to avoid hitting the object or person.” Page 10 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 On negligently causing harm, he writes “A driver of a motor vehicle who drives without due care and attention as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances is guilty of negligent driving and if his negligence results in an injury to any person, he shall thereby be guilty of negligently causing harm within the meaning of section 72 of Act 29. According to section 12 of Act 29 “A person causes an event negligently, where, without intending to cause the event, that person causes it by a voluntary act, done without the skill and care that are reasonably necessary under the circumstances”. Simply put, negligence is the omission to take care where there is a duty of care. Also, a breach of driving regulations may constitute prima facie evidence of careless or negligent driving. It is the contention of prosecution that the accused person drove above the required speed limit of 50km/h thus breached his duty of care to other road users. The accused person admitted that he owed a duty of care to other road users and maintained that he exercised that duty to the best of his ability. What was this best of ability? It is an undisputed fact that the area of the incident is a built-up area with a speed limit of 50 km/h. A reasonable man and competent driver driving within a built-up area like the Technical University area will drive within the speed limit of 50km/h with full attention on the road with a look out for any possible obstruction or interference on the road in order not to cause harm to other users of the road. The accused person testified that when the victim crossed to the inner lane, he did not see him early as they were all moving and all of a sudden, the victim alighted Page 11 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 and started crossing the road and that he swerved to the left but unfortunately his passenger side hit him”. From his own evidence, he did not see the victim early. If indeed the accused person was driving at a speed of not more than 40km/h as he wants this Court to believe, he would have been able to apply his breaks and avoid hitting the victim upon sighting the victim about 13.4 metres ahead crossing the road unless his attention was not on the road or drove above 50km/h. As it is, there is no direct evidence before the Court to confirm the speed at which the accused person was driving as there are no speed cameras on that road where the incident occurred. Under the circumstance the Court will have to rely on circumstantial evidence to make the necessary inferences in the determination of this issue. If the accused person was driving at 40km/h as alleged by him and his witness (DW1); seeing the victim as old as 78 years old allegedly alight from the left side of the taxi onto the road; the victim being a user of the road or an object on the road, the accused person in the exercise of his duty of care to all road users should have anticipated the next move of the victim and exercised reasonable precaution under the circumstances. From Exhibit D, the sketch and measurements of the accident scene which was admitted in evidence without objection, and which was not challenged in anyway during cross examination by counsel for the accused person, the point from where the accused person saw the victim to the point of impact measures 13.4 metres and from the point of impact to where the deceased’s body finally landed measures 5.6 metres away from the point of impact (backwards) and from the point of impact to the near side edge of the road measured 1.7 meters. So if the dual carriage road measures 8.4m, it implies the victim was almost done crossing the road and in the Page 12 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 inner lane of the road where the accused was driving and if indeed the accused person saw the victim allegedly alight from the taxi at a distance of about 13.4m and driving at a speed of not more than 50km/h, he would have been able to avoid hitting the deceased by tapping gently on the brake paddle to bring the vehicle to a stop or slow it to reduce the impact on the victim; and even more so at a speed of not more than 40km/h as alleged by him. Also, the resultant position of the body of the deceased which was 5.6m behind the point of impact would imply that some force might have thrown the body that far; not in front of accused person’s vehicle but behind it. This confirms PW1’s evidence that when the vehicle hit the victim, the body went up in the sky before landing on the road. Even DW1 testified that the body of the deceased fell on the bonnet of the vehicle before falling on the floor. Going by DWI’s evidence then it is not likely or reasonably probable that it was a metal under accused person’s vehicle which cut the victim’s leg as alleged by the accused person and without any force, lifted him unto the bonnet of the vehicle before landing on the ground. Moreso when it is the right leg which was chopped off. Rather I believe prosecutions story that the victim was hit from the front of the vehicle, lifted high because of the speed, and fell on the bonnet before landing on the ground. The victim per the evidence before the Court also suffered severe head injury. Exhibit F is a photograph of the body of the victim lying in a supine position on the street with blood oozing from the head area and without the right leg. Also, the dismembered right leg of the victim could not be found at the accident scene (which is a very open and clear road) but rather found at a distance of about 20 metres from the accident scene. What would have chopped off and thrown the leg that far if not from the force and impact of the accident? And this in the view of the court could only be as a result of the speed at which the car was being driven by the accused at that material time. This is clear evidence that the accused on that day was less careful with no reasonable Page 13 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 consideration for other users of the road including the victim at the centre of the instant case. It cannot be denied if a driver drives at the approved speed of 50 km/p.h. any accident involving a pedestrian would not occasion impact that could cause the death and dismembering of the leg of the victim and severe head injury as happened in the instant case. I therefore do not find this defence by the accused person reasonably probable. I prefer the prosecution’s story to that of the defence having looked at the extent of injury or harm caused to the victim, the point of impact accident sketch and other evidence before the Court. The contention by the accused person that he got to know that it was a metal under his headlight that allegedly chopped off the leg of the victim is not substantiated. No evidence was adduced by him in proof of same. It is trite that the duty of the accused person to adduce evidence in his defence by raising a reasonable doubt as to his guilt does not mean making mere assertions without adducing any form of evidence in support or proof of same. And even if that had been established, it is my view that the alleged metal once it was on the vehicle driven by the accused person, was still under his control and he had a duty to ensure that his vehicle was road worthy and not in a condition to cause harm to other users of the road including pedestrians and vehicles to whom he owed a duty of care. And this would raise a presumption of negligence on his part. This defence by the accused person therefore fails and raises no doubt at all in the case of prosecution or as to his guilt. Also, the accused person under cross examination admitted every statement in his cautioned statement (exhibit A) to the police on the day of incident which exhibit was admitted without any objection. The content of which was also not challenged by counsel for the accused person during cross examination of the investigator through whom it was tendered. Only for him to now state during his oral testimony in Court Page 14 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 that the victim alighted from the left side of a taxi and started crossing the road suddenly. Evidence as critical as this was not captured in Exhibit A and same never came up during the cross examination of PW2 through whom it was tendered. This could at best be an afterthought for which reason I do not believe him. It has been held that the consequence of prior statement being inconsistent with the testimony in Court may render the testimony of the witness negligible (See State v. Otchere [1963] 2 GLR 463, Akowuah v. C.O.P [1963] 2GLR 390 and Bour v. The State [1965] GLR 1-5 SC, in which the Supreme Court opined that “Where a witness has previously said or written something contrary to what he testifies to in court, his evidence should not be given much weight”. If only the dead could speak, the evidence by the late Alexander Frimpong could have made the determination of this matter easier. That notwithstanding it is my considered view that the evidence before the Court as discussed above is sufficient and can be relied on in drawing the necessary conclusions. In conclusion therefore, I hold that the accused person’s voluntary act of driving the Honda vehicle in the way and manner he did on the day of incident (29th December 2020) thereby causing harm to the victim which harm resulted in his death was negligent as he failed to exercise the required degree of care and reasonable consideration for other road users like the deceased under the circumstances he found himself; driving in a busy built-up area. The harm caused the victim now deceased was unlawful because it cannot be justified by any of the provisions on justifiable use of force under chapter one (section 30-45) of Act 29. He is therefore found guilty on both counts and convicted of same. Page 15 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 Sentence: As earlier indicated Count one (1) attracts a sentence of not more than 200 penalty units or forty months imprisonment or both the fine and prison term whilst count two (2) is a misdemeanor attracting a prison term of not more than three (3) years imprisonment. Having considered the submission by counsel for the convict praying for a mitigated non-custodial sentence for the convict, having also heard the submission by the Attorney for the state praying for a deterrent sentence because of the prevalence of fatal accident cases in our society and the money spent by the State in maintaining sanity on our roads, I acknowledge the fact that the convict is a first time offender, he is quite young and in his prime age, he is a father, having cooperated with the police during investigations, his demeanor and conduct in Court during the trial, and the fact that he appears remorseful, I am minded not to pass a long custodial sentence. However, having considered the circumstances of this case, the impact of the accident on the victim (a life lost forever), the carnage on our roads, the prevalence of road accident cases in our society and the rate of fatalities, I agree with Prosecution that a deterrent sentence will be just under the circumstances of this case. Not just to the convict but also to all present here today and the society at large. Having balanced all mitigating and aggravating factors herein, the convict is hereby sentenced to eighteen (18) months imprisonment plus a fine of 150 penalty units on Count one. In default of the fine, one (1) year imprisonment and six (6) months imprisonment on Count two. All to run concurrently. Accused person is reminded of his right to appeal against the sentence and conviction. Comment: Page 16 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24 Aside the circumstances of this case and the impact of the accident on the deceased victim, the Court also considered the prevalence of fatal accident cases and the rate at which innocent people both young and old including those of the productive working class are being maimed on our roads on a daily basis, the Court was of the view that there is the need for a deterrent sentence to serve as a caution to all road users especially motorist as the festive season(Christmas) approaches. Valuable human resources are lost on our roads due to road accidents. The indiscipline on our roads is very worrying. A lot of money and effort goes into road safety campaigns and efforts at maintaining sanity on our roads. We all must be careful, obey road traffic regulations and pay attention whilst on the road to make the streets of our society safe for us all. H/H MATILDA RIBEIRO (MRS) CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nafisatu Iddrisu (Assistant State Attorney) for State Prosecution E. Asafo-Adjei led by Suleman Musah for the Accused Person ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 17 of 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Republic v. Eric Gyan _ (CC NO. B14/12/2022) 18/12/24