Nanevi Vrs Republic (CC/80/2024) [2024] GHAHC 287 (19 February 2024)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HO – VOLTA REGION CORAM: CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS.) J. SUIT NO. CC/80/2024 DATE: 19TH FEB., 2024 AMEWUGAH NANEVI VRS. THE REPUBLIC Appellant – Present. Prosecution – AG – Present. Lawyers: – Elorm Fugar (ASA) for the Republic – Present. Mr. Asumani representative from the Prison, Ho - Present. JUDGMENT The appellant is aged between 27 – 29 years was convicted for the offence of causing unlawful harm contrary to Section 69 of Act 29/60. From the record of appeal appellant gave explanation for his extreme anger and why he decided to stab a person he had confrontation with. The man dodged and complainant was in harm way. The trial court his sentence took the view that appellant intended to stab a man so was already armed with knife. He set out to commit crime. The fact that his intended victim was missed but fell on the complainant herein did not change his mens rea. He was sentenced to 12 years IHL. Appellant now appeals to this Court for remission of Sentence. His grounds of appeal are follows: (1) He is a first time offender. 1 (2) That the 12 years sentence is harsh and excessive. (3) That he has served more than 5 years of the 12 years imposed on him. (4) That he pleaded guilty simplicita and did not waste the court’s time and state resources. In the instant case the appellant was charged with causing Harm contrary to Section 69 of Act 29/60. In law the offence is classified as second degree felony which punishment is not provided for in the said section. Once the provision does not fall under the exceptions as enumerated in Section 2965 (5), then by virtue of Section 296(2), the term of imprisonment must not exceed ten years. An imposition of a term of more than ten (10) years imprisonment will be made in excess of jurisdiction. Indeed, the learned state attorney in his written submission stated the law clearly and re-emphasized that in respect of punishment of a second degree felony, in this case, causing Harm, the punishment for such an offence is a term of imprisonment which does not exceed ten years. He opened that the trial judge granted the appellant a twelve years sentence which is in contrast with the provision of the law. As provided per section 69 of Act 29/60 and 296(2)(5) and Act 30. The republic argued that the appellant was not represented. It is the duty of the state to bring the anomaly to the attention of the Judge of the above provision on punishment vis-à-vis the 12 years jail term imposed. After careful study of the appeal the court is of the view that the trial Circuit Court exceeded its jurisdiction on imputing a sentence of 12 years not prescribed for the offence for which appellant was charged. 2 Section 30 (a) (ii) of the Counts Act 1993 provides as follows: “Subject to this Act, an appellant count may in a Criminal case (ii) after the findings, nature the sentence or with or without altering the findings reduce or increase the sentence” (iii) with or without the reduction or increase and with or without altering the findings, after the nature of the sentence. Learned counsel for the republic submitted that stabbing his wife could have led to loss of life had there not been a timely intervention. But appellant is a first time offender, he pleaded to the charge and did not waste the time or resources of the state. These were mitigation facts that should have weighed on the trial Judge. Provisions of Section 69 of Act 29 Section 296(2)(5) and Act 30. The sentence of 12 years IHL is therefore set aside as error excuse of jurisdiction. The appellant has served almost 6 years of the 12 years imposed and the court hold the view that appellant has served his punishment for the cause of stabling his wife. The appeal succeeds and I grant remission of the sentence imposed to 6 years IHL. Sentence to run concurrently from the date of conviction. (SGD.) H/L CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS.) J. (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) 3 *sea. 4