THE REPUBLIC VRS OSEI (B1/01/2024) [2024] GHACC 244 (7 February 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JUDICATURE HELD AT KUMAWU IN THE ASHANTE REGION ON WEDNESDAY THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFOR HIS HONOUR JONATHAN ODARTEY, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. SUIT NO… B1/01/2024 THE REPUBLIC VRS 1. PRINCE OSEI 2. EMMANUEL OWUSU JUDGMENT The accused persons (A1 and A2) herein were charged on three and two counts respectively for: Count One Conspiracy to commit crime to with stealing contrary to section 23 (1) of the criminal and other offences Act 1960 (Act 29). Count Two stealing contrary to section 124(1) of criminal and other offences Act 1960 (Act 29). Count Three Use of unregistered motor vehicle contrary to section 41 of RTA683/2004 as amended by section 41 of RTA 761/2008 The respective particulars of the offences as set out in the charge sheet are as follows: Count One Prince Osei (A1), 30 years, carpenter, 2. Emmanuel Owusu 27 years, Tiler for that you on the 8th day of January, 2024, at about 2:30am at Asekyerewa near Akotosu in the Ashanti Region within the jurisdiction of this court, did agree to act together with common puropose to commit crime to wit stealing Count Two Prince Osei (A1), 30 years, carpenter, 2. Emmanuel Owusu 27 years, Tiler for that you on the 8th day of January, 2024, at about 2:30am at Asekyerewa near Akotosu in the Ashanti Region within the jurisdiction of this court, you dishonestly appropriated one black sheep valued at 1,000.00 belonging to one Akua Serwaa. Count three Prince Osei (A1), 30 years, carpenter, for that you on the 8th day of January, 2024, at about 2:30am at Asekyerewa near Akotosu in the Ashanti Region within the jurisdiction of this court, then been the driver in charge of Toyota Vits Taxi Cab, did drive the said vehicle with unauthorized registration number plate. On 25th day of January, 2024 the accused persons (A1 and A2) were arraigned before the Circuit Court for the first time. The three and two charges respectively were read and explained to them to which they both pleaded guilty simplicita to all the three counts and two counts respectively. Thereafter, the facts were given to the court. The accused persons were convicted on their own plea but were remanded into police custody for sentencing on 7th February 2024. The plea of guilty was recorded as exactly stated by the accused as mentioned in sect 199 (1) of Act 30 which states that “where the accused pleads guilty to a charge, the court before accepting the plea shall, if the accused is not represented by counsel, explain to the accused the nature of the charge and the procedure which follows the acceptance of a plea of guilty’. PLEA OF GUILTY 199 (1) “where the accused pleads guilty to a charge, the court before accepting the plea shall, if the accused is not represented by counsel, explain to the accused the nature of the charge and the procedure which follows the acceptance of a plea of guilty. (4) “ where the accused pleads guilty but adds words indicating that the accused may have a defense or so indicates in answer to the court, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty and record it as having been entered by order of the court. I have had a look at the cases of REPUBLIC VRS BRIGHT [1974]2 GLR 12 and FORSON VRS. THE REPUBLIC [1976] 1 GLR 138 at 146 In the Bright case His Lordship Andoh J. cautioned as follows: “It is imperative that ample care should be taken by the tried court to see that there should be no ambiguity in the plea of “guilty”. The trial court is to make sure that the plea is not imperfect or unfinished; for in law, a court ought not to take the Accused to have admitted his guilt unless he does so in unmistakable terms.” In the words of the accused persons before this honourable court the plea of guilty was unambiguous and voluntary and the consequences have been amply explained to them To go further, it is important to note that in this case, the accused persons have admitted the offence of conspiracy. For the offence of conspiracy, it is necessary to establish the following:- i. Agreement to commit the unlawful act of stealing – acting for a common design. There need not be any prior deliberation. ii. Intention on their part to commit that unlawful act – this was manifested in their common pursuit of the stealing agenda. See the following cases which have all espoused the provisions on section 23 of the Criminal and other Offences Act, 1960, Act 29 which deals with conspiracy: i. Behome v Republic [1979] GLR 112 ii. State v Boahene [1963] 2 GLR 554 iii. State v Otchere & Others [1963] 2 GLR 463 iv. Azametsi v The Republic [1974] 1 GLR 228 CA In this latter case, and per the facts of the case the accused persons agreed to act with the common purpose of stealing the said animal. It is instructive that the conspiracy was made to steal an animal. It is necessary in law to make reference to stealing in the Criminal Offences Act and its definition in section 125 that “a person steals if he dishonestly appropriates a thing of which he is not the owner.” Again the second offence of stealing has also been established through their admission. The ingredients of the offence of stealing are three and well known to the basic law student. Section 122(2) of Act 29 which further explains the appropriation of a thing connected with stealing has been defined to mean “any moving, taking, obtaining, carrying away or dealing with a thing with intent that some person may be deprived of the benefit, or of his ownership or of the benefit of his right or interest in the thing, or in the value of proceed or any part thereof.” The evidence on record is clear and straight forward without any shred of ambiguity as to what happened on that day. Conspiracy and Stealing are second degree felonies as described in sections 23(1) and 124(1) of Act 29 respectively. The punishment for these offence as seen in section 296 (5) of Act 30 could go up to 25 years. A1 and A2 pleaded guilty simplicita without wasting the court’s time and they are first time offenders. The court is therefore mindful of the need to give both of you the opportunity to reform as young persons. Nevertheless other potential offenders are also expected to learn from the decision of this court. The court in its wisdom has considered these factors enumerated for the determination of the appropriate sanctions. Finally, Prince Osei (A1) on that same day then been the driver in charge of Toyota Vits Taxi Cab, did drive the said vehicle with unauthorized registration number plate. This is also a criminal offence which is punishable by the lay The accused persons are convicted on their own plea of guilty to both counts of the offence levelled against them. A1 and A2 are therefore sentenced to a fine of 220 penalty unit on each count or in default serve four years each imprisonment all the counts to run concurrently. The sentence is to take effect from the day of your arrest under Article 14(6) of the 1992 constitution. SGD H/H JONATHAN ODARTEY ESQ. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE KUMAWU - ASHANTI