Republic v Basit and Another (D2/029/24) [2024] GHACC 415 (12 December 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CASE NO.: D2/029/24 THE REPUBLIC VRS 1. BASIT ALHASSAN 2. ONE OTHER AT LARGE FIRST ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT ONE OTHER AT LARGE INSPECTOR VIVIAN TAMEA GYABAAH HOLDING THE BRIEF OF A.S.P. STEPHEN AHIALE FOR THE REPUBLIC PRESENT NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON JUDGMENT The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 1 of 21 THE CHARGES The first accused person herein was arraigned before this court on 5th December 2023 charged with the offences below. The one other is at large and therefore has not appeared in court since the case was registered in this court. Hence, the first accused person (hereinafter referred to as the accused person) was arraigned before this Court on the following charges; 1. Conspiracy to commit crime to wit Robbery, contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). 2. Unlawful Entry, contrary to section 152 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). 3. Robbery, contrary to section 149 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). THE PLEA The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charges after they had been read to him. Therefore, the prosecution assumed the burden to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. FACTS The brief facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that the complainant Elizabeth Amankwah is a micro finance operator who resides at Yellow House- South Ofankor while accused Basit Alhassan is a scrap dealer who stays at Lomnava Bolah Junction. On 25th November 2023 at about 1:30am, complainant was asleep in her room The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 2 of 21 when she heard a knock at her door. She opened the door only to meet the accused standing in front of her door with a knife pointed on her to surrender and hand over all her mobile phones, money and other personal belongings. That the complainant who came out naked when opening the door became scared on seeing the accused. She ran back into the room but she was chased up by the accused with the knife pointed on her. That the accused then told the complainant to keep mute. He succeeded in robbing the complainant of her valuables including three tablets, two Samsung mobile phones, an iPhone X, a smart watch with its charger, a 32-inch EXLG flat screen television set all valued GHS13,570.00 and cash the sum of GHS50.00. That the accused during the operation warned the complainant to be quiet and mute as two of his accomplices were at the entrance holding gun. A 10 years old daughter of the complainant by name Boakyiwaa Nana Ama who was awake during the incident was further warned by the accused to close her eyes and turn face down. The accused later left with the items and changed location to Pokuase Ampax hotel. On 26th November 2023, accused was traced and arrested at his hideout at Lomnava -Top hill upon intelligence received. Statement on caution was obtained from him. A search conducted on him revealed a knife in his bag. After investigation accused was charged with the offences and arraigned before this honourable court. To prove their case, the prosecution called three witnesses and tendered in evidence exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’, being the investigation caution statement and charge statement of the accused person respectively. EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 3 of 21 The first prosecution witness (PW1), Elizabeth Amankwah testified that on 25th November 2023, she was asleep with her ten-year-old daughter when she heard a knock on her door at about 1:30am. That she thought it was her thirteen-year-old daughter who sleeps in a separate room who was coming into her room so she opened the door only to meet the accused person in her corridor holding a knife. That she saw his face the moment she opened her door and switched her light on. He had no mask on his face but rather he removed her elder daughter's hoody which was on the drying line and wore on his head, but it was smaller than him so it could not cover his face well so she saw him and identified him very well. According to PW1, the accused person is someone who used to play in their neighbourhood with her kid brothers. That she kept mute for fear that he might harm or even kill her when he realizes that she knew him or she recognized him. That the accused followed her to her room, pointing the knife at her asking her to bring all her monies. That the accused threatened to kill her if she does not give him what he came for. That the accused person still pointed the knife at her and started packing her valuables that he can carry. PW1 continued that the accused person took her two Samsung phones, one iPhone X, 3 ten inches tablets, smart watch and their chargers that he also took her beach bag in which he kept the items he took and was still demanding for money so she opened her wardrobe and brought out her purse which she had GHS50.00 and a perfume in it. That he took the GHS50.00 and her perfume from the purse and also took her roll on from the wardrobe. That her ten-year-old daughter woke up and saw the accused person, and the accused person threatened her that he will kill her if she does not close her eyes and go back to sleep. That the accused person continued to point the knife at her (PW1) and told her they were three men who came for the operation and that two of his colleagues were standing outside with guns so if she made any move, they will shoot her so she obeyed him and The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 4 of 21 kept quiet. He was still pointing the knife at her, and led her to the hall where he took her 32inches EXLG Television and kept it under his armpit. He asked her to open the burglar proof door, the door in the corridor and the main door for him and she obeyed and opened all the doors for him and he brought her to the compound, whilst, he was using the knife to touch her back side. He then took her to where he passed to enter the room and she saw that the accused broke the burglar proof in one of the windows and slide the glass window and had access to enter the room. That the accused eventually left through the main gate. That she called her kid sister's husband and he came to pick them to the police station where she lodged a formal complaint. That she called her brothers and told them what happened and the person involved. Her brothers met up with her with six of their friends, and upon enquiries, they went to the accused person's various hideouts to look for him but did not find him. Prior to that they went to look for him at his mother's house at the Lomnava, Bola junction, but he was not there too. That they went back home but they asked some people to monitor his mother's place for them. The following day, Sunday 26th November 2023, at about 8.00am, they had a call that he had come to his mother's house so they went there and met him and arrested him and took him to the police station. That on their way to the police station and without telling or asking him anything, the accused person told them that it was someone who resembles him who came to rob her so if they leave him, he will go and bring the things. That the accused person and his family members begged her to withdraw the case from the police so they bring it home for them to pay for all the stolen items. PW2, Alexander Somuah Amankwah also testified that on 25th November 2023 Saturday, at dawn, he received a distress call from his sister, Elizabeth Amankwah, to the effect that she had been robbed by an individual who happened to be their childhood friend. That The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 5 of 21 he recognized the accused person straight away per the description his sister provided about him and also because he was somebody known to all of them all. That PW1 told him that the accused person entered her room while she was still sleeping with her kids and attacked her with a knife. As soon as he received the information, he called his other brother and some friends and they immediately rushed to meet up with his sister at the scene. Upon arrival, his sister showed them the point of entry, where the accused person had broken the burglar proof at the house to gain access. PW2 continued that given that they already know the accused person, they decided to reach out to a few individuals who might have information on his whereabouts. That it was revealed to them that he had a drug addiction, and it was possible that they could find him at one of the locations where drugs are known to be sold. With this information, they began their search for him. They visited five places known for drug-related activities, hoping to locate the accused person, but unfortunately, they were unable to find him. Prior to this, they also visited his house, only to be informed that he was not at home. On Sunday morning, one of their nephews contacted him to inform him that one of the individuals they had asked to keep an eye on the accused person had spotted him returning home. Without wasting any time, they proceeded to his location and successfully apprehended him. They then took him to the nearest police station where he was rearrested and detained. That on their way to the police station, when they had not asked the accused person anything, he told them that he was not the person who broke into his sister's room rather it was someone who resembles him. PW3, the investigator herein, Detective Inspector Francis Kalefe testified that on 25th November 2023, whilst on duty as a detective a robbery case was reported and referred to him. He recounted the facts as presented by the prosecution as well as what the complainant told him when she reported the case. That the accused person was taken to the station when he was arrested. That, a search was conducted at the accused person’s The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 6 of 21 place of abode at Lomnava- Bolah Junction and police found a knife in his bag. That he was questioned in that regard but no tangible explanation was given. PW3 tendered the caution and charge statements of the accused person as exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its case. EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSON In his defence, the accused person testified in open Court that lives at Lomnava Bola junction and he is a trader. That he stayed with his sick mother and he took care of her and lived with his siblings in the same house. That one Sunday some people attacked them in their house, pushed his mother down and dragged him and took him away without knowing where they were taking him. That when they reached the destination, he met some friends whom he knows very well. That it was there that they told him their sister told them he and some boys have come to rob her which is not true. That the complainant told him they have CCTV camera which they could not produce to the investigator. That the complainant told him in confidence that she is the complainant in this case so he should admit that he came to rob her so that she will do something about. That he did not rob anybody. What the complainant is saying is not true. That his only witness is his brother Mohammed Alhassan. The accused person called one witness, Mohammed Alhassan being his brother as DW1 who testified that he was in the house with his brother, Basit Alhassan and their mother who has stroke when the complainant and another man came to their house looking for Basit. He asked them what Basit had done to them and they replied that Basit had taken their phone, TV and watch. That because his mother was sick, he told them that Basit was The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 7 of 21 not at home and so they left. They came back the next day with a group of boys to arrest Basit. The complainant later came back with the police to search their house and they took a knife from their house and left; and because his mother was sick, he could not follow them to the police station. That his mother died after hearing that Basit had been arrested. The accused person thereafter closed his defence. LEGAL ISSUES The legal issues to be determined are: 1. Whether or not the accused person unlawfully entered the room of one Elizabeth Amankwah with intent to commit crime. 2. Whether or not the accused person herein did agree to act together with another person with a common purpose to commit robbery. 3. Whether or not the accused person herein did point a knife on one Elizabeth Amankwah and succeeded in robbing her of three tablets, two Samsung mobile phones, an iPhone X, a smart watch with its charger, 32-inch EXLG television set, all valued GHS13,570.00 and cash the sum of GHS50.00. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF The fundamental rule in all criminal proceedings is that the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused person is on the prosecution and the standard of proof required by the prosecution should be proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 8 of 21 This being a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Under Article 19(2)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty or has pleaded guilty. This requirement is provided in sections 11, 13 and 15 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). In the case of Asante (No.1) v. The Republic (No.1) [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 132 at 143 per Pwamang JSC, it was held that: “Our law is that when a person is charged with a criminal offence it shall be the duty of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, meaning the prosecution has a burden to lead sufficient admissible evidence such that on an assessment of the totality of the evidence adduced in Court, including that led by the accused person, the Court would believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed and that it was the accused person who committed it. Apart from specific cases of strict liability offences, the general rule is that throughout a criminal trial the burden of proving the guilt of the accused person remains with the prosecution. Therefore, though the accused person may testify and call witnesses to explain his side of the case where at the close of the case of the prosecution a prima facie case is made against him, he is generally not required by law to prove anything. He is only to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to his commission of the offence and his complicity in it except where he relies on a statutory or special defence.” Also, in the case of Republic v. Adu-Boahen & Another [1993-94] 2 GLR 324-342, per Kpegah JSC, the Supreme Court held that: “A plea of not guilty is a general denial of the charge by an accused which makes it imperative that the prosecution proves its case against an accused person... When a plea of The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 9 of 21 not guilty is voluntarily entered by an accused or is entered for him by the trial court, the prosecution assumes the burden to prove, by admissible and credible evidence, every ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt”. ANALYSIS 1. Whether or not the accused person unlawfully entered the room of one Elizabeth Amankwah with intent to commit crime. Section 152 of Act 29 on unlawful entry provides that: “Whoever unlawfully enters any building with the intention of committing crime therein shall be guilty of second-degree felony.” The elements of the offence of unlawful entry are contained in section 153 of Act 29 and it provides as follows: “A person unlawfully enters a building if he enters otherwise than in his own right or by the consent of some other person able to give such consent for the purposes for which he enters." PW1 in her evidence in chief told the court that on 25th November 2023 she was asleep with her ten-year-old girl when she heard a knock on her door at about 1:30am and she thought it was her thirteen year old daughter who sleeps in a separate room who was coming into her room so she asked her to enter but she did not enter so she got worried and rushed out completely naked only to meet the accused person in her corridor holding a knife. That she saw the accused person and identified him very well because he is someone who used to play in their neighbourhood with her kid brothers but she kept mute for fear that he might harm or even kill her when he realizes that she knows him or The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 10 of 21 recognized him. That the accused followed her to her room pointing the knife at her and asking her to bring all her monies. PW3 also told the court that his investigations disclosed that in the early hours of 25th November 2023, the accused together with one Ratti and others at large burgled into the complainant’s room through the hall. That after knocking on the door of PW1, the accused person forcefully entered the room when PW1 opened the door. The accused person in his defence denied the offence and testified that he did not go to the complainant’s house but was rather taking care of his sick mother. The complainant who is also PW1 maintained under cross examination that it is the accused person who committed the offence and further narrated coherently how the incident happened and what the accused person did which is consistent with her evidence in chief. In exhibit ‘A’ which is the caution statement of the accused person and very similar to the charge statement which is in evidence as exhibit ‘B’, the accused person denied the offence and stated that he had suspected one Rati who might have committed the said offence; and that he was ready to assist the police to get whoever has committed the crime. From the evidence on record, it boils down to the testimony of PW1 who has been very consistent as against the evidence of the accused person which is marred with inconsistencies in what he told the police and what he said in his defence. I find PW1 to be a credible witness as opposed to the accused person and therefore attach weight to the evidence of PW1. From the evidence on record and the elements of the offence of unlawful entry as provided in section 153 of Act 29, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the elements of the offence of unlawful entry beyond reasonable doubt as the evidence on The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 11 of 21 record by PW1 indicates that the accused person unlawfully entered the room of the complainant herein. I shall next address issues two and three together. Issue two is “whether or not the accused person herein did agree to act together with another person with a common purpose to commit robbery.” and issue three is “whether or not the accused person herein did point a knife on one Elizabeth Amankwah and succeeded in robbing her of three tablets, two Samsung mobile phones, an iPhone X, a smart watch with its charger, 32- inch EXLG television set, all valued GHS13,570.00 and cash the sum of GHS50.00”. The accused person is also charged with conspiracy to commit crime to wit; robbery, contrary to section 23(1) and 149 of Act 29, and the substantive offence of robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29. Section 23(1) of Act 29 on conspiracy provides that: “Where two or more persons agree to act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a criminal offence, whether with or without a previous concert or deliberation, each of them commits a conspiracy to commit or abet the criminal offence.” The essential ingredients of the offence which the prosecution must prove to succeed on the charge of conspiracy as stated by Kyei Baffour JA sitting as an additional High Court Judge in the case of Republic v. Eugene Baffoe Bonnie (unreported); Suit No. CR/904/2017 delivered on 12th May, 2020, are as follows: i. That there were at least two or more persons. ii. That there was an agreement to act together. iii. That the sole purpose of the agreement to act together was for a criminal enterprise. The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 12 of 21 In the case of Faisal Mohammed Akilu v. The Republic [2017-2018] SCGLR 444 the Supreme Court per Yaw Appau JSC stated on Conspiracy as follows; “Conspiracy could therefore be inferred from the mere act of having taken part in the crime where the crime was actually committed. Where the conspiracy charge is hinged on an alleged acting together or in concert, the prosecution is tasked with the duty to prove or establish the role each of the alleged conspirators played in accomplishing the crime” It is imperative that I set out the law on the substantive offence of robbery to discuss the two offences together. Section 149 (1) of Act 29 as amended by the Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 2003 (Act 646) provides as follows: “Whoever commits robbery is guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction and trial summarily or on 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 (15) years”. Section 150 of Act 29 further defines robbery in the following terms; “A person who steals a thing is guilty of robbery if in and for the purpose of stealing the thing, he uses any force or causes any harm to any person, or if he uses any threat or criminal assault or harm to any person, with intent thereby to prevent or overcome the resistance of that or of other person to the stealing of the thing.” In the case of Behome v. The Republic [1979] GLR 112, the court held that The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 13 of 21 “one is only guilty of robbery if in stealing a thing he used any force or caused any harm or used any threat of criminal assault with intent thereby to prevent or overcome the resistance of his victims, to the stealing of the thing.” The essential ingredients of the offence that the prosecution must establish to secure conviction as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Frimpong alias Iboman v. The Republic [2012] 1 SCGLR 297 at 312, per Dotse JSC are as follows; i. That the accused person stole something from the victim of the robbery of which he is not the owner. ii. That in stealing the thing, the accused person used force, harm or threat of any criminal assault on the victim. iii. That the intention of doing so was to prevent or overcome the resistance of the victim. iv. That this fear of violence must either be of personal violence to the person robbed or to any member of his household or family in the restrictive sense. v. The thing stolen must be in the presence of the person threatened. Now, the accused person having denied the offence, it boils down to the testimony of PW1 (the complainant) who was an eye witness and a victim of the said attack as against that of the accused person. From the evidence of PW1 who is also the complainant, the accused person pointed at knife at her and threatened to kill her if she does not give her what he came for. That the accused person through the said threat of death took away her phones, smart watch and tablets with their chargers as well as her 32-inch flat television. That the accused also took The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 14 of 21 her GHS50.00, a perfume and her roll on, when he demanded for money but that is all he got from her purse and wardrobe. From the evidence on record, PW1 maintained under cross examination that she identified the accused person very well because she knows him as someone who used to play with her little brothers. PW1 under cross examination was consistent with her evidence in chief and maintained her position that she really identified the accused person when he robbed her with knife and threatened to kill her. PW2 also confirmed in his evidence that the accused person is their childhood friend who is known to all of them all. The accused person in his defence and under cross examination admitted that he knows the brothers of the complainant as his friends. This gives credence to the testimony of PW1 as to her knowing the accused person as her little brothers’ friend before the incident and could therefore identify him. Accordingly, on the issue of identification of the accused person by PW1, I find the testimony of PW1 to be credible and attach significant probative value to same. The evidence led in support of the charge that the accused person agreed and acted together with one other now at large to rob the complainant and actually robbed the complainant therefore, boils down to the testimony on oath of the prosecution witnesses particularly PW1 against that of the accused person. In the case of Lutterodt v. Commissioner of Police (1963) 2 GLR 427 the Supreme Court in holding 3 stated as follows: The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 15 of 21 "where a decision of a trial court turns upon the oath of prosecution witness against that of a defence witness, it is, incumbent on the trial court to examine the evidence of the said witnesses carefully along with other. If the court prefers the evidence of the prosecution then it must give reasons for the preference, but if it is unable to give any reasons for the preference then that means that there is a reasonable doubt as to which of the versions of the story is true, in which case, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the defence." The accused person in his investigation caution and charge statements, stated inter alia that he knows he has not done anything but he suspects one Rati who might have committed the said offence. That he is ready to assist police to get whoever has committed the crime. That there is a young man who stays at the neighbourhood by name Ratty who equally resembles him and he highly suspects the said Ratty to might have been the one involved in the case which he was rather accused of, as they have similar resemblance. This also confirms part of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that when the accused person was arrested and without being told anything he said he was not the person who broke into the complainant’s room rather it was someone who resembles him. The reasonable question is how did the accused person know that an offence had been committed for him to suspect another person and further said he was ready to assist the police to arrest that person? The inconsistencies in the evidence of the accused person and that of his own brother he claimed to have been in the same single room with, but the police did not find him when they went there to search for him, indicates that the mother of the accused person was not pushed down because DW1 testified that no one touched her mother. This goes to support the fact that the accused person’s claim that he was with his mother is not true The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 16 of 21 because he was not in the said single room when the police went to search for him and so he was not truthful to the court. The fact that the accused person admitted that he knows the complainant’s brothers as his friends gives weight to the complainant’s testimony that she very well identified the accused person when he robbed her, because she knew him prior to the incident as her brothers’ friend who used to come to their place to play with her brothers. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Munkaila v. The Republic [1995-96] 1 GLR 367 that the evidence of a single witness can be sufficient to convict an accused person provided the witness is credible and the necessary probative value can be attached to the said evidence. This court believes that PW1 was speaking the truth when she mounted the witness box as her demeanor and credibility were assessed. Therefore, I accept PW1’s evidence in preference to that of the accused and his witness. There are no statutory requirements that evidence must be corroborated before it can be acted upon. Thus, section 7(3) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) states the current statutory position as follows: “Unless otherwise provided by this or any other enactment, corroboration of admitted evidence is not necessary to sustain any finding of fact or verdict.” From the above authorities, the evidence of a single witness is competent to convict an accused person. The complainant (PW1) testified positively that she identified the accused person because she knew him to be her brothers’ friend prior to the incident. There is no need for corroboration of the evidence of PW1 as corroboration is no longer required under section 7(3) of the Evidence Act. This court is satisfied that the identification by the complainant is credible because it is not in dispute that the accused person is friends or used to be friends with the complainant’s brothers and the fact that The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 17 of 21 the complainant knew her before the robbery incident and therefore, she could not have made a mistake when she identified the accused person but kept quite to save her life and that of her children. I have assessed the demeanor and credibility of PW1 and I have no cause to doubt her evidence. Furthermore, the credibility of the accused person is in doubt because when he decided to open his defence, the inconsistencies in his evidence and that of his brother whom he called as a witness as well as what he told the police in his investigation caution and charge statements exposed him as being untruthful. The accused person told the court that he was at home during the time of the incident but the evidence on record suggests otherwise. It has been held in Munkaila v. The Republic [supra] 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.” From the evidence on record the accused person tried to cover up his robbery attack on the complainant by telling an untruth that he was at home during the time of the incident but from the analysis of the evidence on record that evidence by the accused person is untrue. The evidence on record indicates that the accused person is the person who committed the offence of robbery after he unlawfully entered the premises of the complainant as the complainant actually identified him because she already knew him by virtue of being her brothers’ friend who they all know. On the other hand, there is no satisfactory evidence by the prosecution from the evidence on record to indicate the agreement by the accused person and one other at large to act together with a common purpose to commit robbery as well as the role they each played as conspirators, in the commission of the offence of robbery. I accordingly find that the The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 18 of 21 prosecution has not been able to establish the elements of conspiracy against the accused person. In the case of Commissioner of Police v. Isaac Antwi [1961] GLR 408-412, it was held that the accused person is not required to prove anything. All that is required of him is to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. This is further emphasized by sections 11(3) and 13(2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). The defence of the accused person could not raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt because same is not reasonably probable as he would have been found in the said single room if he was indeed there at the time the police went in search for him in the same single room; and it is because he was not there that his brother told the police he was not there. There is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the charges of unlawful entry and robbery as analyzed above. Conversely, there is no concrete evidence on record to sustain the charge of conspiracy to commit crime to wit robbery. Consequently, the charge of conspiracy to commit crime to wit robbery is hereby dismissed. From the evidence on record and the authorities above, I accordingly acquit and discharge the accused person on the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery on count one. CONCLUSION I support my decision with the dictum of Denning J. (as he then was) in the case of Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All E.R. 372 where he said: "Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 19 of 21 course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence ‘of course it is possible, but not in the least probable,' the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice.” On the totality of the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt on counts two and three. For the foregoing reasons, I pronounce the accused person herein guilty of the charges against him on counts two and three; and accordingly convict him of the offences of unlawful entry and robbery respectively. Pre-Sentencing hearing Court: Any plea in mitigation before sentence is passed? Accused: I plead with the Court to have mercy on me. I am the breadwinner of my family. I am taking care of my mother and my younger siblings. I also have a three-year-old. Court : Is the accused person known? Prosecutor: No. SENTENCING In sentencing the accused person, the court takes into consideration his plea in mitigation and the fact that he is a first-time offender as well as the youthful age of the accused person. In accordance with Article 14(6) of the 1992 Constitution, time spent by the The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 20 of 21 accused person in custody is considered. The court further takes into consideration the fact that no physical harm was caused to the complainant. The court has however considered the fact that the items stolen by the accused person were not retrieved. I consequently sentence the accused person as follows: Count 2: The accused person is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) months in hard labour (I.H.L.) Count 3: The accused person is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of ten (10) years in hard labour (I.H.L.) The sentences shall run concurrently. Restitution Order The accused person is ordered to return the items he stole from the complainant to her provided they are in the condition same were stolen, otherwise the accused person shall pay the value of the said items being GHS13,570.00 as well as the amount of GHS50.00 to the complainant. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) The Republic v. Basit Alhassan & One Other At Large Page 21 of 21