Republic vrs. Larbi (D4/065/24) [2024] GHACC 422 (25 October 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE CASE NO.: D4/065/24 THE REPUBLIC VRS NAOMI LARBI ACCUSED PERSON PRESENT CHIEF INSPECTOR VERONICA AMEDORME FOR THE REPUBLIC PRESENT VICTORIA MORKOR AYEH HOLDING THE BRIEF OF RICHARD KOJO ABBAN, ESQ. FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON ABSENT JUDGMENT The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 1 of 23 THE CHARGE The accused person was arraigned before this Court charged with the offence of Stealing contrary to Section 124(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). THE PLEA She pleaded not guilty after the charge had been read and explained to her in Twi, being her language of choice. The accused person having pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution assumed the burden to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. FACTS The facts of the case as presented by the prosecution are that, the complainant Emmaryn Leuzzi is a business developer and resides at Airport Residential area whilst accused Naomi Larbi, aged, 32 is also a house cleaner and stays at Ashaley Botwe. On 3rd January 2024, accused was employed by thr complainant to clean and keep up her apartment and be paid GHS1,000.00 per month. Accused has been working with the complainant on non-residential basis for about a month but on 6th February 2024, the complainant noticed theft of her 2,000 Euros inside her safe meant for medical expenses. The complainant confronted the accused and she admitted in the presence of an independent witnesses. On 6th February 2024, a complaint was lodged by the complainant. Upon a thorough search, the Police retrieved 490 Euros from the accused persons' room. Meanwhile, accused claimed she only stole Nineteen Euros from the safe. Further search on accused person’s place of abode revealed unspecified material properties belonging to the The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 2 of 23 complainant value not immediately known. After investigations, the accused was accordingly charged with the offence and put before this honourable court. To discharge their legal burden, the prosecution called three witnesses including the investigator. EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES From the evidence of PW1 who is also the complainant, she employed the accused person as her house cleaner on a non-residential basis on January 3, 2024. That it was agreed that the accused will be paid GHS1,000.00 as salary and GHS100.00 as transportation. She continued that in the month of January, she noticed her money amounting to 2,000.00 Euros missing from her locked safe. She also noticed household items and personal belongings missing in her house. That she confronted the accused in the presence of Boutros Azantilow, Emelia Djentuh and Veronica Akpabah at her residence on February 6, 2024 and the accused confessed to taking the money but denied taking any item from her residence. That the accused confessed to keeping the said amount in her home and emphatically stated that she had not spent the money. That the accused agreed to return the full amount on that day. That the accused consented to video recording as proof of her returning the stolen amount without running away. PW1 continued that she lodged a complaint at the Airport Police station after the accused failed to return the money as earlier agreed and the accused was arrested by the Police. Later that day, the accused again stated that she stole only 19 Euros. That upon a police search, 490 Euros was retrieved from the accused person’s home. That a further search revealed that the accused had in her possession at home, her personal belongings and household materials which the accused had earlier denied. PW1 tendered the video The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 3 of 23 footage of the confession of the accused person, as well as the photographs of some of her stolen personal belongings retrieved at the accused person's home. According to PW2, Veronica Akpabah, on or about Tuesday, February 6, 2024, about 9:20am, the accused was confronted in her presence together with Emmaryn Leuzzi, Emelia Djentuh and Boutros Azantilow. That the accused admitted in her presence to stealing 2,000 Euros; and confessed to keeping the said amount in her home, that she had not spent the money. That the accused agreed to return the full amount on that day. That the accused agreed to have a video recording of herself as proof that she would not run away. That a complaint was lodged at the Airport Police Station on or about February 6, 2024. PW2 further testified that she was present with the police, Boutros Azantilow, Emmaryn Leuzzi and Emelia Djentuh during the police search at the residence of the accused when Emmaryn Leuzzi and Emelia Djentuh identified their personal effects at the accused person's residence. That she was also present when the stolen money 490 Euros and GHS1,200 was retrieved by the Police as well as the personal effects of the complainant such as wigs, baby items, towels, clothes and food items were taken by the Police. PW3, the investigator herein, D/C/Inspector Benedict Okocha Chanagea, stationed at Airport Police Station, Accra stated in his evidence that on 06/02/2024, he was a detective on duty and a case of stealing was reported by the complainant Emmaryn Leuzzi. That the accused person was re-arrested and investigation caution statement collected from her. That investigation was extended immediately to accused person’s residence at Ashaley Botwe where a thorough search was conducted in her room and an amount of 490 Euros was retrieved from her. PW3 continued that upon further interrogation accused admitted the offence but insisted she only stole seven piece of fifty euros The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 4 of 23 denomination and two pieces of twenty euros denomination thus in total three hundred and ninety Euros from the complainant’s safe. According to PW3, a further search by Police and the complainant at the accused’s room retrieved a number of personal belongings identified by the complainant to police and GHS2,200.00. That after investigations the accused was charged with the offence. He tendered the accused perosn’s cautioned statement and charged statement in evidence as exhibits ‘P’ and ‘Q’. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its case. After the close of the case of prosecution, the Court examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to determine whether a prima facie case had been made by the prosecution to warrant the accused person to open her defence. The Court then made a finding that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case against the accused person; and she was called upon to enter into her defence. In view of the above, the Court found that the accused person had a case to answer. The court however explained the rights of the accused person to her that she can decide to remain silent, make an unsworn statement from the dock or give evidence on oath. The court also reminded the accused person of the charge against her. EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSON In opening her defence, the accused person testified in open Court that her name is Naomi Larbi and she resides at Ashaley Botwe. That on 3rd January 2024, the complainant herein employed her as a house help on a non-residential basis with a monthly salary of GHS1,000.00. She continued that somewhere at the end of January while doing her normal house cleaning at the complainant's house she chanced on some foreign currency The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 5 of 23 on the floor. That she intended to give the money to the complainant but when she checked she was in an online meeting so in order not to disturb her, she placed the money on the table where the dusters are kept with the intention of returning same to her. That due to the pressure at work, she forgot to inform the complainant about the money she found while cleaning the house. That at the close of the day while she was packing the dusters she used for work as well as her clothes, she mistakenly packed the money in addition. That she only realized that the money was part of the dusters and her clothes after she had returned home. According to the accused person since it was a Friday, she decided to wait. That she went back to work to inform the complainant of the money she had found since she does not work on weekends and complainant also informed her earlier that she will travel during the weekend but will keep in touch with her. That she had an issue with her phone so she took it to the phone repairer for it to be repaired and upon picking her phone up from the repairer’s shop, she realized that the complainant had called her severally and also sent her a series of messages asking her to report to work on Tuesday. That on Tuesday, she reported to work as instructed by the complainant and upon her arrival at work she met complainant sitting in front of her house in the company of her mother, sister and another woman whom she does not know. She greeted them and entered the house to change into her working attire. Not too long after she entered the house, complainant's sister came to inform her that she had a visitor. That she followed her to the sitting room and found an unknown gentleman sitting there. She tried to find out why the gentleman was after her because she did not know him but he told her someone asked him to pick her up. She was confused and decided to probe further but the complainant's mother informed her that complainant's money is missing and went ahead to accuse her of stealing the money and stated that the CCTV camera in the house had captured her stealing the money. The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 6 of 23 That the complainant's mother further went ahead and stated that the money that was missing was foreign currency. She then informed her that she had found some foreign currency on the floor in complainant's room and complainant's mother asked her where the money was. She informed her that the money was in her house however they did not give her the chance to explain how the money got into her possession and started calling her a thief. That they further went ahead to video her and threatened to post the videos on social media. Complainant's mother asked if she had used the money and she told her she had not touched the money. She further asked if she could return the money immediately if they are to follow her to her house and she responded in the affirmative. Complainant then asked the unknown man present who happened to be a police man to handcuff her so she does not abscond. That they all went to her house and upon arriving at her house she gave the bag containing the money to the policeman who in turn opened the bag and gave the money in the bag to complainant's mother. Complainant's mother counted the money and stated that the money was not up to the missing amount. She further asked her to provide the remaining money but she told her that was all the money she found. She insisted that the money was not up to but she never stated the exact amount that was missing and further asked the policeman to enter her house and conduct a search. The policeman refused to search her house because he did not have a search warrant and further informed complainant's mother that he has no right to search her house without a search warrant. Complainant's mother after this went to the police station to make a report and stated in her report that the missing amount was 2,000.00 Euros. After the police had obtained a search warrant, he came to her house together with the complainant, her mother, sister and brother to conduct a search in her house. While conducting the search, the policeman The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 7 of 23 found GHS1,200.00 in her bag which included GHS1,000.00 which was her salary for the previous month. That after the search she was sent back to the Airport Police station and asked by the police to put down her statement. That he was reluctant to put down her statement but the police forced her to put down her statement. In the course of taking her statement, the police man asked her the amount of money she took and she informed him she had no idea of the amount because she did not count the money to know how much she took. That he kept on pressurizing her and insisting she stated the exact amount she picked from complainant's house. Due to the pressure, she informed him that the money she found was about 7 pieces of 50 Euros notes and 2 pieces of 20-euro notes. She was remanded into police custody that day. The following day the police man together with the complainant and complainant’s family went to her house to conduct another search because complainant said her sister informed her that they found some items in her possession which belonged to the complainant when they conducted the initial search in her house. That when they arrived at her house, complainant and her mother and siblings began asking which items she brought from complainant's house and she responded that the dusters complainant asked her to throw away which she kept and a skirt complainant gave her. The complainant then began taking videos and pictures of almost every item in her room claiming ownership of same. The accused person did not call witness, and closed her defence thereafter. LEGAL ISSUE The legal issue to be determined by this Court is whether or not the accused person did dishonestly appropriate the sum of 2,000.00 Euros, belonging to Emmaryn Leuzzi. The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 8 of 23 BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF A fundamental principle of our criminal justice system is that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until he has pleaded guilty or proven guilty. It is trite learning that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. See sections 11(2), 13(1) and 15 of the Evidence Act, 1975, (NRCD 323). In the case of Gligah & Attiso v. The Republic [2010] SCGLR 870, the Supreme Court held as follows; “Under article 19 (2) (c) of the 1992 constitution, everyone charged with a criminal offence was presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. In other words, whenever an accused person was arraigned before any Court in any criminal trial, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the offence charged against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was therefore on the prosecution and it was only after a prima facie case had been established by the prosecution that the accused person would be called upon to give his side of the story.” The burden on the accused person, when called upon to enter her defence, is to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. The standard of proof for the defence is proof on a balance of probabilities. In the case of Osae v. The Republic [1980] GLR 446, the Court held that: “although it was settled law that where the law cast the onus of proof on the accused, the burden on him was lighter than on the prosecutor, and the standard of proof required was the balance of probability, if at any time of the trial, the accused voluntarily assumed the The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 9 of 23 onus of proving his defence or some facts as happened in this case, the standard he had to discharge was on a balance of probabilities.” ANALYSIS The accused person has been charged with stealing under section 124 (1) of Act 29 which provides that: “A person who steals commits a second-degree felony.” Section 125 of Act 29 defines Stealing as follows: “A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates a thing of which he is not the owner”. In the case of Brobbey & Others v The Republic [1982-83] GLR 608-616, Twumasi J. stated as follows: “Three essential elements of the offence of stealing become obvious and they are: 1. That the person charged must have appropriated the thing allegedly stolen. 2. That the appropriation must have been dishonest. 3. That the person charged must not be the owner of the thing allegedly stolen.” Also, in the case of Ampah v. The Republic [1977] 2 GLR 171, Azu Crabbe C.J reiterated the elements of stealing as follows: “….to establish the offence the prosecution are required to prove only the three elements of: (i) dishonesty; (ii) appropriation; and (iii) property belonging to another person…” It is therefore clear from the definition that a person cannot be guilty of stealing unless he or she is proved to have appropriated a thing in the first place. In addition, the appropriation must have been dishonest that is, the person charged should have had the intention to be dishonest and act in bad faith. The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 10 of 23 From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the accused person was employed by the complainant as a house cleaner in her home on a non-residential basis on 3rd January 2024 and at the end of the same month the complainant noticed her money being 2,000.00 Euros was missing from her locked safe as well as her household items and personal belongings. According to PW1 the accused confessed in the presence of PW2 and two other persons that she took her money but denied taking any item from her residence. Exhibit ‘N’ is a video of the accused person and other people where she confessed to taking money and some items from the complainant’s residence. PW1 also tendered photographs of the 490 Euros and her items that were found at the accused person’s residence and same retrieved from her. PW2 testified that she was present when the accused person admitted stealing 2,000.00 Euros and said she had not spent it and further agreed to return the full amount on that day. That she was also present when the police conducted a search at the residence of the accused and the complainant identified her personal effects at the accused person’s residence. That she was also present when the 490.00 Euros was retrieved from the accused person; and the personal effects of the complainant were taken by the police from the accused person’s residence. According to PW3, his investigations led to the retrieval of a number of personal effects of the complainant and GHS2,200.00 from the accused person’s residence. The evidence of PW3 also corroborated that of PW1 and PW2 on the fact that the amount of 490 Euros was retrieved from the accused person. The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 11 of 23 Exhibit ‘N’ has three CCTV footages where the accused person is seen and heard confessing that she took a table towel, a pink dress of the complainant; and further admitted stealing the complainant’s money from the complainant’s residence. The accused person also stated in the exhibit ‘N’ that she has not spent the money and that the money is there. That she saw the key and used it to open the drawer which was closed. From the evidence of the accused person in this court being her defence, the accused person admitted that she chanced on some foreign currency on the floor in the complainant’s residence whilst working for her but she forgot to give it to the complainant or tell her about it and mistakenly took it home to give it to her the next time she went there to work. The accused person further gave series of stories as to why she could not immediately return the money to the complainant. The accused person under cross examination gave some pieces of evidence which corroborate the case of the prosecution that the accused person committed the offence of stealing. Below is the relevant part of the cross examination of the accused person by the prosecutor: “Q: Per your Witness Statement paragraph 10, you have been communicating with the complainant on phone ever since you were working with her, not so? A: I do not call her; she rather calls me. Q: Meaning you have the complainant’s number on your phone? The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 12 of 23 A: Yes, my lady. Q: In paragraph 4 of your Witness Statement, you stated that you chanced on the complainant’s foreign currency, can you tell the Court the date you chanced on the complainant’s foreign currency? A; 2nd February, 2024 on Friday. Q: You were arrested on 6th February 2024, is it true? A: Yes. Q: So, there is to doubt that from 2nd February to 6th February 2024 you could forget whatever happened? A: No; I will not forget. Q: I put it to you that when you admitted in the video and your written statements at the police station that indeed you stole the complainant’s money, it was something fresh in your memory. A: Yes, my lady. Q: I put it to you that you are not being truthful to this Court, when the matter was fresh you stated in the video that you found the safe key and used it to open her safe and took the money. The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 13 of 23 A: It is not true because when the issue happened my madam asked me where I saw the key to open the drawer and I told her I did not see any key to open the drawer so if you watch the video very well, she was asking me where I saw the key and I also asked her what key. Q: How much was the complainant’s money that you took? A: When I saw it, it was Euros but I did not count the money I just flipped it. Q; In exhibit E, when the matter was very fresh, you stated that the currency you took was Euros and you took 50 Euros note 7 pieces and 20 Euros note 2 pieces, is that correct? A: It is true, when the CID asked me, I told them that I do not know the actual amount I took he said I should be able to tell the amount that I took. Q: The day the police and the complainant took you to your residence, the Euros they found on you was 490 Euros, not so? A: Yes, I showed them where I kept the money but they did not count the amount in my presence. Q: You stated in paragraph 4 and 5 of your Witness Statement that it was ending of January 2024 that you chanced on the complainant’s money and you took it and said you were going to inform her but you never informed her until you were confronted on 6th February 2024 about the money. The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 14 of 23 A: It is true because on that day when I saw the money she was online having a meeting and she had closed her door so I did not ask her, and because I had not finished with the work I was doing. So, I wanted to inform her after the completion of my work. So, she went out and when she came back, I had finished my work so I asked her if I could go home and she said I could go and told me that she will be travelling so I should not come to work on Monday as that day was a Friday. That if there is anything she will let me know. So, it was on my way going home with my things and the money I saw that I remembered that I did not ask her about the money I saw at her place. Q: So, you will agree with me that you took complainant’s money from her room without her consent? A: Yes, my lady; it is because I did not get the chance to inform her about it that is why I did not inform her. Because that day was a Friday that is why I took the money because I was working there and it was not at a safe place. Q: You also agree with me that you took the complainant’s money from her room which you were not the owner of the money because the money did not belong to you. Q: Yes, it was not my money. A: It is your case per your Witness Statement paragraph 32, that you did not count the money that you took from the complainant’s room; not so? A: Yes, it is true. I did not count the money because it does not belong to me so when I saw it, just flipped it. The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 15 of 23 Q: So, you cannot be sure of the amount you took from the complainant’s room. A: Yes, because it does not belong to me, I did not count.” From the above, the reasonable question which the accused person’s defence could not give any tangible answer to, is, why did the accused person not inform the complainant about the said money she allegedly chanced on during her course of work when she had the opportunity to speak to the complainant and asked her if she could go home? The defence by the accused person that she forgot to let the complainant know about the money she had taken is unacceptable and unreasonably probable especially when she had the opportunity to speak to the accused person and even asked her if she could go home but she conveniently forgot to inform the complainant of the said money she allegedly chanced on whilst working for the complainant. From the conduct of the accused person, she actually had the intention of taking the said money for her own use being the reason why she took it to her house. Also, she admitted in exhibit ‘N’ being the video that she saw the key and used it to open the drawer which was closed. Therefore, I find her defence as an afterthought. The accused person under cross examination contradicted herself that she said in the video that she did not see any key to open the drawer but this is not true as she did not say that in the video. I find the accused person as not a credible witness and her story in her defence is also not credible and reasonably probable. This is because the accused person actually got the chance to inform the complainant about her money but she did not say anything about it. The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 16 of 23 The story of the accused person is an afterthought and not acceptable by this court because if indeed the accused person really wanted to return the said money, she claims she chanced on, in the complainant’s residence whilst working for her, she could have left it exactly where she saw it and later tell the complainant about it or she could have immediately drawn the complainant’s attention to it. From the evidence on record the accused person actually intended to steal the said money when she saw it and indeed dishonestly appropriated same but decided to give stories when she was confronted about the said money. The elements of stealing as discussed above in this judgment have been clearly established in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the defence of the accused person could not raise any reasonable doubt as to her guilt as she made admissions to taking the complainant’s money without her consent even before this court in her defence and under cross examination and further attempted to justify her actions but the said justification does not amount to any reasonable legal defence. In relation to the ownership of the money, section 123 of Act 29 makes provision on things in respect of which stealing, etc., can be committed. It provides as follows: “(1) Any of the crimes of stealing, fraudulent breach of trust, robbery, extortion, or defrauding by false pretence can be committed in respect of anything, whether living or dead, and whether fixed to the soil or to any building or fixture, or not so fixed, and whether the thing be a mineral or water, or gas, or electricity, or of any other nature, and whether the value thereof be intrinsic or for the purpose of evidence, or be of value only for a particular purpose to a particular person, and whether the value thereof do or do not amount to the value of the lowest denomination of coin; and any document shall be deemed The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 17 of 23 to be of some value, whether it be complete or incomplete, and whether or not it satisfied, exhausted, or cancelled. (2) In any proceedings in respect of any of the crimes mentioned in subsection (1) it shall not be necessary to prove ownership or value.” (Emphasis mine) From the above, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove who actually owns the thing allegedly stolen or its value. All that is needed is for the prosecution to prove is that, the accused person is not the owner of the thing allegedly stolen and also prove that indeed the accused person appropriated something notwithstanding the value, of which she is not the owner. The evidence on record by the prosecution witnesses and by the accused person herself point to the fact that the accused person is not the owner of the said money and items she admitted appropriating which appropriation I find as dishonest considering the manner the accused appropriated same. On the element of appropriation, section 122 (2) of Act 29 defines Appropriation as follows: “An appropriation of a thing in any other case means any moving, taking, obtaining, carrying away, or dealing with a thing, with the intent that some person may be deprived of the benefit of his ownership, or of the benefit of his right or interest in the thing, or in its value or proceeds, or any part thereof”. It must be shown that the accused committed the act with the intention that some person may be deprived of the benefit of his ownership, or the benefit of his right or interest in the thing, or in its value or proceeds, or any part thereof. It is enough if the intention is to deprive some person temporarily of his benefit or right or interest in the thing The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 18 of 23 appropriated. It also suffices if the appropriation is merely for a particular use – section 122(3) of Act 29. Therefore, temporary use or appropriation satisfies the requirement as long as it is accompanied by the requisite proscribed mental element. From the evidence on record the accused person took the complainant’s money without her consent whilst she worked for her. If indeed she mistakenly took the money, she could have immediately given it to the complainant and or even left it in the complainant’s house since the money was still in the home of the complainant assuming that the accused chanced same on the floor as she claimed in her evidence. From the evidence on record, the elements of the offence of stealing have been established. Thus, the accused person is not the owner of the money and items she admitted appropriating in exhibit ‘N’ and in her evidence on record, and the appropriation was dishonest. For the accused person to have been called upon to open her defence, it implies that a prima facie case was made out against her by the prosecution and it was the duty of the accused person to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution to enable her acquittal. 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 All that the accused person needed to do was to raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Unfortunately, the defence of the accused person could not raise any The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 19 of 23 reasonable doubt as to her guilt; rather, it exposed her as she tried to justify her dishonest action by taking the complainant’s money without her consent. In the case of State v. Owusu & Anor [1967] GLR 114, the court held that: “an extra-judicial confession by an accused that a crime had been committed by him did not necessarily absolve the prosecution of its duty to establish that a crime had actually been committed by the accused. It was desirable to have, outside the confession, some evidence, be it slight, of circumstances which made it probable that the confession was true. From the evidence adduced in the instant case, there was sufficient corroboration which confirmed that the confession of each accused was true.” In the instant case, apart from exhibit ‘N’ which contains the video wherein the accused person admitted the offence of stealing, parts of her evidence on record also established that the accused person took money from the complainant’s residence as analyzed above in this judgment. From the evidence on record, the accused person indicated that she does not know the actual amount she took from the complainant’s residence but admitted they found 490.00 Euros in her house. She further testified under cross examination that when the police and the complainant were in her house, she showed them where she kept the money. Therefore, the accused person who admitted taking money from the complainant’s residence without her knowledge and consent, and did not count the money cannot deny that the money was 2,000.00 Euros when she did not count same. From the evidence on record the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused person stole money from the complainant’s residence where 490.00 Euros, GHS2,200.00 The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 20 of 23 and complainant’s personal belongings were retrieved from the accused person in her home. Having carefully considered the evidence on record and relying on the authorities above, I do find that the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused person is guilty of the offence of stealing the complainant’s money together with her personal items. This is because from the evidence of the accused person, I find that the she does not have a reasonably probable defence to the charge against her and her evidence could not help her raise a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. I therefore find that the prosecution has been able to establish the ingredients of the offence of stealing beyond reasonable doubt. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that, indeed the accused person committed the offence of stealing. Consequently, I pronounce the accused person herein guilty of stealing and convict her accordingly. Having considered that the accused person is a woman and relying on section 313A (1) of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), I do hereby order that the convicted (accused) person be tested for pregnancy before sentence is passed on her. The sentence is therefore deferred until the Court is furnished with the results of the said pregnancy test. Accordingly, the accused person shall be remanded in police custody for the police to ensure that the pregnancy test is conducted. The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 21 of 23 31st October, 2024 Prosecutor: The Court made an order yesterday to produce the accused person and the pregnancy report. Same was received by the registrar and the accused person is here. Court: The Court has been furnished with the pregnancy test results conducted on the accused person (convict) and it indicates that the convict is currently not pregnant as the pregnancy test dated 31st October 2024 is negative. Accordingly, the court shall proceed to give its sentence but before then, there any plea in mitigation before sentence is passed? Convict: I plead with the court that I have committed the offence and that the court should forgive me. I will work and pay for the money. Court: Is the accused person (convict) known to the police? Prosecutor: No. By Court: In sentencing the accused person (convict), the Court takes into consideration her plea in mitigation and the fact that she is a first-time offender as well as her youthful age. The court also takes into consideration the amounts of 490.00 Euros and GHS2,200.00 which were retrieved from the accused person and given to the complainant. In accordance with Article 14(6) of the 1992 Constitution, time spent in custody by the accused person is considered by the court. However, given that the accused person is not currently pregnant per the results of the pregnancy test upon the order of the Court on same; and considering the fact that the accused person abused her position as a cleaner in the house of the complainant and stole The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 22 of 23 her money, and further considering the prevalence of the offence of stealing by employees from their employers within this jurisdiction, this court is of the view that there is a need to impose a deterrent sentence under the circumstances of this case to send a signal to the accused person and other people in the jurisdiction with similar criminal inclination to curb the spate of stealing within the community for employers to trust the youth and employ them as the youth are always complaining of unemployment in the system. I consequently sentence the convict herein to serve a term of imprisonment of twelve (12) months in hard labour. In addition, she shall pay a fine of 250 penalty units. In default of the fine, the accused person shall serve a prison term of twelve (12) months in hard labour. Restitution Order In accordance with section 147B of the Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) Act, 1960 (Act 30), the accused person is ordered to refund the amount of 2,000.00Euros she stole from the complainant’s residence to the complainant less 490.00Euros and GHS2,200. The complainant shall enforce this order through civil means. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) The Republic v. Naomi Larbi Page 23 of 23