Republic Vrs Donkor and Another [2023] GHADC 452 (17 April 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING AT ASAMANKESE ON THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023, BEFORE HIS WORSHIP GEORGE DAVIS KWASI OFORI (MR) – DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUIT No:B1/57/23 THE REPUBLIC VRS. 1. ISAAC DONKOR 2. ABUBAKAR DADDICK INSPECTOR SAMUEL OWUSU FOR PROSECUTION. J U D G M E N T CHARGES: 1. CONSPIRACY TO STEAL, CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 23(1) AND 124(1) OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES ACT 1960(ACT 29) AS AMENDED; 2. UNLAWFUL ENTRY, CONTRARY TO SECTION 152 OF ACT 29/60; and 3. STEALING, CONTRARY TO SECTION 124(1) OF ACT 29/60. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTIONS CASE: It is their case that on the 12th day of March, 2023 at about 4p.m, a witness in this case visited a scrap dealer at Asamankese and met A1 offering the two stolen machine motors for sale. That the witness confronted A1 and took the exhibits from him. That on 14/3/2023, A1 was arrested by the complainant after the witness had informed him. Upon his arrest, A1 mentioned A2 as his accomplice, and he was also arrested. 1 | P a g e All these happened after the witness, who is a worker at Pomes oil limited at Sukrong, Asamankese reported for work on the 12/3/23 at about 7:30p.m and saw that the two drier machine motors had been stolen. A1 admitted his guilt and was sentenced after conviction. SUMMARY OF 2ND ACCUSED (A2’S) CASE A2 denied involvement in the charges against them. According to him A1 is not his friend, but he (A2) described A1 as a “Career thief” who comes around an area where he smokes for recreational purposes. That although A1 is not his friend, he is an acquaintance whom he meets regularly a place that he described as “Ghetto”. According to him, A1 suggested to him that they should go and steal but he turned his down and that is why after being caught, A1decided to implicate him. That A1 has a mental illness as a result of taking had drugs and therefore has evidence that he (A2) is his accomplice is a figment of A1’s own imagination, as he is innocent of all the charges against him. A2 did not call any witness to support his case. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: From all the evidence before me, the issue for determination is whether or not the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the 2nd accused person beyond reasonable doubt. This, they ought to do by providing either direct proof of the accused person’s culpability or by way of circumstantial evidence. To succeed, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove both the actus reus (acts of the offences charged) and mens rea (i.e the intent of the accused) in committing the offence, as an act alone would not constitute an offence unless it is committed with 2 | P a g e a criminal intent. See Section 10 and 11(3) of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) as amended. For the charge or offence of conspiracy to steal the ingredients that the prosecution ought to prove is that A1 and A2 agreed or acted together to steal. See State vrs Otchere [1963]2 GLR 463 and Logan and Laverick Vs ?The Republic [2007-2008]1 SCGLR 76 @ 83-86. For the charge of stealing, the ingredients needed to be proven by the prosecution are that the accused persons took and carried away the two drier machine motors with intent to deny the owner the use or benefit of his property. With respect to unlawful entry, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused person entered the premises of the complainant’s work place without the consent of the owner or any person who has authority to grant such consent. The first accused person, when caught admitted his guilt and mentioned A2 as his accomplice. According to him, he has never worked at the Pomes oil Limited before, but A2 has. A2 did not deny working there before. According to A1 it was A2 who informed him of the presence of the machines there, and asked him to assist him steal them. A2 has described A1 as a “Career thief”. In my opinion, it is reasonable he assume that A2, knowing the dexterity and competence that A1 has in stealing decided to plan with him and steal the machines, after apparently breaking into the premises in the night unlawfully and making away with the machines. From the time of his arrest to the day of his sentence per evidence on record, A1 was very consistent in his account of A2 being his accomplice. After describing A1 as suffering mental illness, A2 did not offer any proof to prove this damaing allegation nor call any witness to corroborate his evidence that A1 is a career thief, a drug addict and so on, when the onus shifted on him 3 | P a g e A2 has worked in the premises where the machines were kept before. He knew of their existence. He also knew that A1 is a competent thief and could help him steal them, which they were able to execute on the night of 6/3/23 or at the dawn of 7/3/2023. The circumstances described above point to only one direction: that A2 was the one who conspired with A1 to unlawfully enter the premises of Pomes Oil Limited and steal the two drier machines, which conclusion every reasonable mind would draw. From all the evidence before me and my evaluation I find as a fact that A1 and A2 are acquaintances. It is also a fact that A2 knows A1 to be a thief who could be of help when needed. A2 has worked at the premises of Pomes Oil Limited and knew of the existence of the 2 stolen machines. Although they were not caught in the act, given the circumstances described above, it is my opinion that prosecution was able to establish the guilt of A2 beyond reasonable doubt by proving that he conspired with A1 to unlawfully enter the complainant’s premises and steal the two machines to deny the owner the benefit of his machines. For this reasons, I convict A2 of the three charges against him. (SGD) H/W GEORGE DAVIS KWASI OFORI (MR) (MAGISTRATE) 17/4/2023 4 | P a g e