Republic Vrs Assibe and 2 Others [2023] GHACC 961 (11 October 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT DUNKWA-ON-OFFIN; SITTING ON 11TH OCTOBER 2023 CORAM: HIS HONOUR YAW POKU ACHAMPONG CASE NO.: B1/25/2022 THE REPUBLIC VS 1. ABDULY ASSIBE 2. AYIMBILA ABEL 3. TIMOTHY NYARKO @ DADZIE ACCUSED PERSONS ABSENT SERGEANT PRINCE ADU AMOAKO Accused persons herein were arraigned before this court charged as follows: JUDGMENT COUNT ONE STATEMENT OF OFFENCE CONSPIRACY TO STEAL: CONTRARY TO SECTION 23 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT 1960 (ACT 29) AND 124(1) OF ACT 29/60 AMENDED BY PARA.4 OF NLCD 398/69 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES[sic] ABDULY ASSIBE; AGED 28, SMALL SCALE MINER, AYIMBILA ABEL AGED 27, SMALL MINER (GALAMSEY): For that you, on 7th day of March, 2022 at Diaso in the central circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did agree to act together with common purpose to commit crime to wit: stealing. COUNT TWO STATEMENT OF OFFENCE STEALING: CONTRARY TO SECTION 124(1) OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT 1960 (ACT 29) AS AMENDED BYPARA.4 OF NLCD 398/69 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES[sic] ABDULY ASSIBE; AGED 28, SMALL SCALE MINER, AYIMBILA ABEL; For that you, on the 13th day of March, 2022 at about 6:30am at Diaso in the central circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did steal 3 shovels, 2 woollen blanket and a rubber container all value[sic] GH¢245 the property[sic] of Ndego Vincent. COUNT THREE STATEMENT OF OFFENCE CARRYING OFFENSIVE WEAPONS: CONTRARY TO SECTION 206(1) OF ACT 29/60 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES[sic] TIMOTHY NYARKO @ DADZIE AGE[sic] 26, – CITY GUARD: For that you, on the 13th day of March, 2022 at about 11:30am at Diaso in the central circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court, without lawful authority, you[sic] had in your possession an offensive weapon to wit: Knife. COUNT FOUR STATEMENT OF OFFENCE CAUSING UNLAWFUL[sic] HARM; CONTRARY TO SECTION 69 [OF] ACT 29/60 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCES[sic] TIMOTHY NYARKO @ DADZIE AGE 26, – CITY GUARD: For that you, on the 13th day of March, 2022 at about 11:30am at Diaso in the central cricuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did intentionally and unlawfully caused[sic] harm to one Ndego Vincent with offensive weapon to wit: knife. COUNT FIVE STATEMENT OF OFFENCE THREAT OF DEATH; CONTRARY TO SECTION 75 OF ACT 29/60 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE TIMOTHY NYARKO @ DADZIE; AGED[sic] – CITY GUARD: For that you, on the 13th day of March, 2022 at about 11:30am at Diaso in the Central Circuit and within the jurisdiction of this court did threaten to kill one Ndego Vincent with knifie wit intent to put the said Ndego Vincent into fear of death[.] COUNT SIX STATEMENT OF OFFENCE ROBBERY: CONTRARY TO SECTION 149 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT 1960(ACT 29) PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE TIMOTHY NYARKO @ DADZIE; AGED 26 – CITY GUARD: For that you, on the 13th day of this court did rob Asiakiba Musah Christian of one Techno spark 4 phone value GH¢750.00. Section 23(1) of Act 29 states: Where two or more persons agree to act together with a common purpose for or in committing or abetting a crime, whether with or without any previous concert or deliberation, each of them is guilty of conspiracy to commit or abet that crime, as the case may be. Section 124(1) of Act 29 states: Whoever steals shall be guilty of a second degree felony. Section 206(1) of Act 29 states: Any person who, without lawful authority the proof where, of shall lie on him, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. Section 69 of Act 29 states: Whoever intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to any person shall be guilty of second degree felony. Section 75 of Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29) states: “Whoever threatens any other person with death, with intent to put that person in fear of death, is guilty of a second degree felony.” Section 149 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29) states, inter alia: (1) Whoever commits robbery is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction on trial summarily or on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years, and where the offence is committed by the use of an offensive weapon or offensive missile, the offender shall upon conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years. (3) In this section "offensive weapon" means any article made or adapted for use to cause injury to the person or damage to property or intended by the person who has the weapon to use it to cause injury or damage; and "offensive missile" includes a stone, brick or any article or thing likely to cause harm, damage or injury if thrown. The prosecution attached a document to the charge sheet as containing the facts that they say supported the charges. In hereby produce the content of the said document ipsissima verba: “The Complainant in count one, count two, 3, 4, 5 Ndego Vincent is a small scale miner and a resident at Diaso. The accused persons namely A1 Abduly Assibe, A2 Ayimbila Abel and A3 Timothy Nyarko @ Dadzie are small scale miners and city guard respectively and all resident at Diaso. On 07/03/2022 at about 11:00am, whilst complainant was working at his mining site, A1 and A2 approached him and pleaded with him to allow them work with him at the site but their request was turned down by the complainant. Later on same day when the complainant closed and left the site at about 9pm, A1 and A2 sneaked to the complainant’s mining site without his consent and used the complainant’s working equipment such as woollen blankets, shovels and rubber containers to work. After the work, the accused persons allegedly went and hid the said equipment such as woollen blankets, shovels and rubber containers to work. After the work, the accused persons allegedly went and hid the said equipment in a bush away from the complainant’s site. On 8/03/2022 at about 8am, the complainant went to the mining site to work only to realize that his working equipment has[sic] been stolen. He conducted this own investigation and got to know that A1 and A2 went to work at his site and stole the equipment. The complainant confronted A1 and A2 over the issue and they admitted the offence and alleged that another thief went to steal the equipment from where they hid it. A1 and A2 upon deliberation arrived at a consensus with the complainant that the complainant should collect their mobile phones and keep it until such a time that the complainant should collect their mobile phones and keep it until such a time that they were able to get the equipment for him or pay it[s] value in terms of money to him and the complainant obliged and took their phones. Later, A1 went to inform A3 about the decision and A3 out of anger he did not accept the decision armed himself with a cutlass and knife and accompanied A1 and A2 to the mining site of the complainant and confronted him and during the altercation, A3 stabbed the back neck and the left palm of complainant Ndego Vincent with the knife. In the ensuing confrontation A3 attacked the complainant in count six by name Asiakika[sic] Musah who was then an onlooker at the site and threatened him that he will[sic] kill him if he does[sic] hand over his mobile phone to him. Out of fear, the said complainant in count six handed over his Techno spark4 mobile phone to A3. Subsequently, the complainant took to his heels and run[sic] to the Diaso Police station for refuge but A1, A2 and A3 took a motor bike and chased the complainant to the said Police station and A3 threatened to kill the complainant in the presence of the Police. The accused persons were arrested by the Police and detained. During investigations Police retrieved the Techno spark 4 mobile phone belonging to the complainant in count six from A3 and retained it. After painstaking investigation they were charged with the various offences stated in the charge sheet and put before this Honourable Court.” The prosecution called three(3) witnesses to seek to prove their case. One Vincent Ndego testified first and he was referred to as PW1. One Christian Asiakiba testified second and he was referred to as PW2. PW3 is the investigator herein. PW1 spoke about what the prosecution put in the facts that was attached to the charge sheet. In paragraphs 14 -21 that: “... 14. Later I saw A1 and A2 coming with A3 to my site with motor bike. 15. A3 got down from the motor cycle and came to me and asked me to hand over the A1 and A3 phone to them and I told him of the agreement. 16. I saw A3 with knife and cutlass. 17. A3 attacked me with the knife and stabbed my left palm and also stabbed the back of my neck. 18. A3 attacked me with the knife and stabbed my left palm and also stabbed the back of my neck. 19. The accused persons chased me to the police station. 20. At the police station I lodged my complainant and I was issued with a police medical form to attend hospital which I did. 21. At the police station A3 threatened to cause harm to me. ..” PW2 stated in para 3 – 8 of his witness statement that: “… 3. On 13th March 2022 at about 11:00am, I was at the mining site and saw A1, A2 and A3 coming with motorbike towards us. 4. When A1, A2 and A3 got down from the motorcycle. 5. They went to the complainant Vincent Ndego and A3 asked the complainant of the A1 and A2 phones and the complainant told them everything about the agreement. 6. That I saw A3 with a knife and cutlass. That after stabbing the complainant A3 chased him away. 7. A3 violently attacked me with this cutlass and the knife and threatened me to hand over my Teckno spark 4 mobile phone to him which I oblige because of the cutlass. 8. After collection the phone A3 told me he will give it to me after the complainant Vincent Ndego had given their phone to them. ...” PW3 whilst under examination-in-chief stated: “I have in my hand the endorsed medical forms I referred to in paragraph 4 of my witness statement. I would like to tender them in evidence. One is from Diaso Health Centre signed by a senior nurse and the other one is from Dunkwa Government Hospital signed by a medical doctor.” The documents were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits E and E1 respectively. The endorsement on Exhibit E dated 13th March 2022 reads: “... The above name patient reported allergedly[sic] beaten by three peron’s with cutlass on the 13th March 2022, following misunderstanding between them. Patient sustained minor laceration on the neck and palm with general bodily pains. Examination Findings: Patient is clinically stable with multiple laceration on the neck and palm. No slap marks seen. Diagnosis: 1. Laceration 2o Assault 2. Musculoskeletal pain 2o Assault Treatment Administered and discharged. …” It is signed by one Mr Akwasi Amponsah as Senior Nurse-in-Charge of Diaso Health Centre. Exhibit E1 has the following as the endorsement of the medical officer: “Patient allegedly beaten by 3 assailants after a misunderstanding. Event occurred on 13th March 2022, and was managed at Diaso Health Centre for the injuries sustained. Examination at time of event revealed (1) About 8cm rugged laceration of posterior neck which was sutured. (2) Superficial laceration of the left palmar region. (3) No other visible injuries reported. Seen & Endorsed on 6/4/22 by Dr. Ofosu” It has been signed by Dr. Benjamin Ofosu Yeboah as Medical Officer, Municipal Hospital, Dunkwa-Offin[sic] PW3 tendered in evidence photographs of the said phone and photographs of the said injuries. When PW3 sought to tender in evidence a document he said contained the investigation cautioned statement of A3, there arose a mini trial culminating in the rejection of that document as evidence. Those as regards A1 and A2 were admitted in evidence. That is of A1 reads: “I am a small scale miner and a resident of Agona Port. On 7/03/2022 at about 10 am, a certain guy I can identify initiated with me and Kofi. The guy is called Mathew. Mathew led us to the site of the complainant. Upon reaching there, we requested the complainant to allow us to work. Complainant rejected our request. The complainant later allowed us to work. On the same day on Monday at about 9pm, Kofi and I went to the complainant[sic] site again and worked. At the time we were working, it came to our request for a cutlass to cut something so I went to an old man at a village to collect cutlass. We sent the cutlass to the site but later we couldn’t get the cutlass again. After working [at] complainant[sic] site, we took all their tools including 3 shovels, 2 wollen, rubber containers to hide in a bush without informing the complainant. On 13/03/2022 at about 7 am complainant met us at the lorry station and they asked us where were their tools. I told complaint the tools are[sic] in the bush. We all went to the bush but whilst are[sic] were going, the complainant took stick and his brother also took stick threatening to beat us if we struggle[sic] with them. Earlier, we had also lost the cutlass we collected from the old man. Upon reaching the bush we couldn’t get the tools for the complainant. The old man then agreed with us collected our two phones on understanding that we should go and buy the cutlass and come back for our phones. I told them I was not having money with me but all was on my phone. So I went to inform suspect Dadzie what has[sic] happen[sic] so that he could assist us to get the phones from the complainant and the old man. Suspect Dadzie accompanied me and Kofi to the complainant[sic] site en route to the old man’s village. We could not meet the old man at home but we met complainant and his people working. Suspect removed the knief[sic] from his pocket and suddenly cut the complainant. The suspect used the knief[sic] and hit the neck of the complainant therefore cutting his neck. Dadzie asked me to inform Kofi so that we also report the matter to the police. At the charge office Dadzie forcibly collected complainant[sic] phone but later complainant collected his phone back but we could not do the case.” That of A2 reads: “I am a small scale mining[sic] and a resident of Diaso Krofofrom. On 7/03/2022 at about 8am suspect Assibe and I went to complainant[sic] site without telling him. We went to do Galamsey work. So[sic] asked the complainant if he could allow us to work. Complainant allowed us to work. On the same day at about 8pm suspect Assibe and I went to the complainant[sic] site to work without telling him. We needed cutlass to cut something so we went to an oldman to request for cutlass. The oldman gave out the cutlass to me. The next day we couldn’t find the knief[sic]. We decided to buy the cutlass for him, I also hide[sic] the tools of the complainant in the bush. The next day we could not find the tools and the cutlass. On 13/03/2022 at about 8pm I was at the station when I was arrested by the complainant. I did not know that suspect Abdulai had called suspect Dadzie. We took wollen 2 rubber container and 3 shovels for stealing.” After the close of Prosecution’s case, the court found that Accused persons had a case to answer. The court proceeded to explain section 174(1) of Act 30/ section 63 of NRCD 323 as well as Article 19(10) of the Constitution 1992 to A3 who was present in court when the time came for Accused persons to open their defence. The court therefore called on him to open his defence, if he so desired. Section 174(1) of Act 30: At the close of the evidence in support of the charge, if it appears to the Court that a case is made out against the accused sufficiently to require him to make a defence, the Court shall call upon him to enter into his defence and shall remind him of the charge and inform him that, if he so desires, he may give evidence himself on oath or may make a statement. The Court shall then hear the accused if he desires to be heard and any evidence he may adduce in his defence. Section 63 of NRCD 323 states: (1) An accused in a criminal action may make a statement in his own defence without first taking an oath or affirmation that he will testify truthfully and without being subject to the examination of all parties to the action. (2) Such a statement by an accused is admissible to the same extent as if it had been made under oath or affirmation and subject to examination in accordance with sections 61 and 62. (3) The fact that the evidence was given without oath or affirmation, or that there was no possibility of examination, may be considered in ascertaining the weight and credibility of the statement, and may be the subject of comment by the court, the prosecution or the defence. Article 19(10) of the Constitution, 1992 states: No person who is tried for a criminal offence shall be compelled to give evidence. A1 and A2 did not appear in court to open defence. A3, after the court had given those explanations, said he would not say anything. Section 150 of Act 29 states: 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. Section 125 of Act 29 states: A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates a thing of which he is not the owner. The following questions arise: Did A1 and A2 agree to act together? Did A1 and A2 dishonestly appropriate anything that belonged to PW1? Was A3 carrying an offensive weapon? Did A3 cause harm to PW1 intentionally and unlawfully? Did A3 threaten to kill PW1? Did A3 use force or harm to steal anything from PW2? In Ackah v. Pergah Transport Limited and Others[2010] SCGLR 728 at 736; Sophia Adinyira JSC threw light on burden of proof when she stated that: “It is a basic principle of the law on evidence that a party who bears the burden of proof is to produce the required evidence of the facts in issue that has the quality of credibility short of which his claim may fail. The method of producing evidence is varied and it includes the testimonies of the party and material witnesses, admissible hearsay, documentary and things(often described as real evidence), without which the party might not succeed to establish the requisite degree of credibility concerning a fact in the mind of the court or tribunal of fact such as a jury. It is trite law that matters that are capable of proof must be proved by producing sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact is more reasonable[sic] than its non-existence. This is a requirement of the law on evidence under sections 10 and 11 of the Evidence Decree[sic].” Section 10(1) of the Evidence Act,1975(NRCD 323) defines “Burden of Persuasion” and it states: For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the court. Section 10(2) of the Evidence Act adds that: The burden of persuasion may require a party to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or non- existence of a fact or that he establishes the existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 11 of NRCD 323 defines “Burden of Producing Evidence” and states further as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him on the issue. (2) In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the prosecution as to any fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. (3) In a criminal action the burden of producing evidence, when it is on the accused as to any fact the converse of which is essential to guilt, requires the accused to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could have a reasonable doubt as to guilt. (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence. There was not an iota of evidence that A1 and A2 agreed anywhere or in any way to act together to steal anything. There is no doubt that A1 and A2 appropriated some items that belonged to PW1 but the entire evidence does not suggest that they acted dishonestly. Indeed, the evidence suggests that they acted negligently. Ollennu J(as he then was) in Majolagbe v. Larbi [1959] GLR 190 made reference to a dictim he gave earlier in Khoury and Anor v Richter which judgment was delivered on 8th December, 1958, as regards proof in law. That dictum has been referred to with approval in Klutse v. Nelson (1965)GLR 537 @ 542 and also Baah Ltd v. Saleh Brothers [1971] 1GLR 119 @ 122. It is: "'Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way, e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances, or circumstances, and his averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating that averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath by his witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true'." The prosecution including the investigative team are enjoined by law and good conscience to apply due diligence to make a fair assessment of a case and put the facts and evidence gathered under the microscope of the elements of the crime as provided in the law to be sure that a suspect should be charged with such a crime. Not only did the prosecution fail on counts 1 and 2 but they also failed blatantly on count 5. They charged A3 with threat of death but the evidence of the key witness on count 5 ie PW1 – the supposed victim of the alleged threat of death stated that A3 threatened him with harm. Section 74 of Act 29 states: Whoever threatens any other person with unlawful harm, with intent to put that person in fear of unlawful harm, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. However, the evidence shows that A3 did threaten PW1 that he would harm him. Section 154 of Act 30 states: (1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete lesser offence, and such combination is proved but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the lesser offence although he was not charged with it. (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a lesser offence, he may be convicted of the lesser offence although he was not charged with it. Robbery is such a serious offence that a law enforcement agency should not be quick to charge somebody with it. See section 149 of Act 29 on the minimum punishments for robbery. The evidence suggests that A3 used force and some sort of threat to take the Tecno phone from PW2 but the evidence does not show that A3 had the intent of stealing the said phone. What I find is that A3 sought to seek redress on behalf A1 and A2. I find that A3 took the phone from PW2 to pressurize PW1 to give back to A1 and A2 their phones. On a criminal charge such as stealing and for this matter robbery, there must be the guilty mind known in the legal circles as mens rea which must go with the wrongful act which in the legal circles is known as actus reus. This is as enshrined in the latin maxim: actus non facit reun, nisi mens sit rea. See the case of R v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168 per Stephen J. In fact, the evidence suggests that there was the actus reus on the part of A3 but same cannot be said of the mens rea. A3 failed to utilize the opportunity he had, to testify in his defence to state his side of the story. In fact, he did not even cross-examine PW3. See section 62(1) of NRCD 323. All the cross-examination, A3 did of PW1 is as follows: Q. I put it to you that I did not stab you. A. It is not true. You used the knife to stab me. Of PW2, A3 did the following cross-examination: Q. I put it to you that you are not being truthful to the Court. A. I have been truthful to the court. Q. Who was present when I attacked you with a cutlass and knife and took your phone as you are alleging. A. There was a lot of people present, including those we were working with. In Commissioner of Police v. Isaac Antwi supra, Korsah CJ stated: “The fundamental principles underlying the rule of law that the burden of proof remains throughout on the prosecution and that the evidential burden rests on the accused where at the end of the case of the prosecution an explanation is required of him, are illustrated by a series of cases. Burden of proof in this context is used in two senses. It may mean the burden of establishing a case or it may mean the burden of introducing evidence. In the first sense it always rests on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; but the burden of proof of introducing evidence rests on the prosecution in the first instance but may subsequently shift to the defence, especially where the subject-matter is peculiarly within the accused's knowledge and the circumstances are such as to call for some explanation.” The learned judge continued, referring to Archbold's Criminal Pleading, (34th ed.) at p. 371, para. 1001, that: "Where the prosecution gives prima facie evidence from which the guilt of the prisoner might be presumed and which, therefore, calls for an explanation by the prisoner and no answer or explanation is given, a presumption is raised upon which the jury may be justified in returning a verdict of 'guilty'. But if an explanation is given by or on behalf of the prisoner which raises in the mind of the jury a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, he is entitled to be acquitted, because if upon the whole of the evidence in the case the jury are left in a real state of doubt the prosecution has failed to satisfy the onus of proof which lies upon them." In Zabrama v. Segbedzi [1991] 2 GLR 221 @ 246, Kpegah J. A. (as he then was) made the following statement on proof in law: “… a person who makes an averment or assertion, which is denied by his opponent, has a burden to establish that his averment or assertion is true, and he does not discharge this burden unless he leads admissible and credible evidence from which the fact or facts he asserts can safely be inferred. The nature of each averment or assertion determines the degree and nature of the burden.” In Oteng v The State[1966] GLR 352@ 354, SC, Ollennu JSC stated: “One significant respect in which our criminal law differs from our civil law is that, while in civil law a plaintiff may win on a balance of probabilities, in a criminal case the prosecution cannot obtain conviction upon mere probabilities.” This principle gained statutory blessing in the Evidence Act of 1975 i.e. NRCD 323 – in section 13(1), to wit: In any civil or criminal action the burden of persuasion as to the commission by a party of a crime which is directly in issue requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See also Sasu Bamfo v Sintim [2012] 1 SCGLR 136 at 138 and Fenuku v John-Teye [2001-2002] SCGLR 985 Section 14 of the Evidence Act, 1975(NRCD 323) states: Except as otherwise provided by law, unless and until it is shifted a party has the burden of persuasion as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to the claim or defence he is asserting Section 15(1) of NRCD323 states: Unless and until it is shifted, the party claiming that a person is guilty of crime or wrongdoing has the burden of persuasion on that issue. Section 17 of NRCD 323 states: (1) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is on the party against whom a finding on that fact would be required in the absence of further proof. (2) Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is initially on the party with burden of persuasion as to that fact. Section 22 of NRCD 323 states: In a criminal action a presumption operates against the accused as to a fact which is essential to guilt only if the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption are found or otherwise established beyond a reasonable doubt, and thereupon, in the case of a rebuttable presumption, the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the presumed fact. In Dexter Johnson v. The Republic [2011] 2 SCGLR 601 @ 663 Dotse JSC referred to Lord Sankey’s statement in Woolmington v. DPP, as follows: “Throughout the web of the English Criminal law, the golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…if at the end of, and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner… the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” I hold that the prosecution has failed prove the claims on counts 1, 2 and 6. I also hold that the prosecution has succeeded on claims on counts 3 and 4. Section 154 of Act 30 avails the prosecution for 3rd Accused to be held liable for threat of harm on count 5. A1 and A2 are hereby acquitted and discharged on counts 1 and 2. A3 is acquitted on count 6. A3 is convicted on counts 3 and 4 as well as count 5 for the offence of threat of harm. In sentencing A3, I have considered the respect he has showed the court generally by attending court regularly unlike the other accused persons. On count 3, I sentence him to three months imprisonment; on count 5 I sentence him to two months imprisonment. On count 4, for the reason stated above as to the conduct of A3 before the court, I will not impose a custodial sentence of him. A3 is sentenced to pay a fine of 250 penalty units on count 4 and in default serve six(6) months imprisonment. The sentences are to run concurrently meaning that A3 will serve the highest sentence being the sentence on counts 4. Further in accordance with section 148 of Act 30, A3 is ordered to pay GH¢2000.00 as compensation to PW1 to cover his medical expenses on the injury he suffered at the hands of A3 and also to cover some other expenses incidental to the said injury. HH YAW POKU ACHAMPONG CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 11/10/2023 19