REPUBLIC VRS FLORA PETTY-STYLES (D21/293/2018) [2022] GHACC 356 (8 December 2022)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GHANA HELD IN ACCRA ON THURSDAY, 8TH DECEMBER 2022 BEFORE HIS HONOUR KWABENA KODUA OBIRI-YEBOAH, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. D21/293/2018 THE REPUBLIC VRS FLORA PETY-STYLES RULING The accused was arraigned before this court on 4 counts. Count 1: Causing unlawful damage contrary to 172 (1) of the criminal offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Count 2: Unlawful entry contrary to section 152 of the criminal offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Count 3: Stealing contrary to section 124 of the criminal offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). Count 4: Inducing a Tenant to quit contrary to section 27(1) of Act 220 of 1963 The law provides under sections 173 and 174 of the Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act, Act 30 as follows: 173. Acquittal of accused when no case to answer At the close of the evidence in support of the charge, it appears to the Court that a case is not made out against the accused sufficiently to require the accused to make a defence, the Court shall, as to that particular charge, acquit the accused. 174. The defence (1) 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 the accused to make a defence, the Court shall call on the accused to make the defence and shall remind the accused of the charge and inform the accused of the right of the accused to give evidence personally on oath or to make a statement. (2) The Court shall then hear the accused if the accused desires to be heard and the evidence the accused may adduce in defence. By this provision, the Accused at the close of the case for the prosecution, has evoked the provision supra, submitting that, no case has been made against her sufficient enough to justify the court to invite her to open her defence. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the court to make that determination as the provision has been invoked. The principle is that at the close of the case of the prosecution, the Court must determine whether a prima facie case, has been made and if that does not happen, then it will necessitate the court to acquit and discharge an accused when: a. There had not been sufficient evidence to prove the essential element in a crime. b. The evidence adduced by the prosecution had been so discredited as a result of cross-examination that no reasonable tribunal could rely on the evidence. c. When the evidence was so unreliable that no reasonable tribunal could safely convict upon it. d. The evidence was evenly balanced, that is to say, that the evidence was susceptible to two likely explanations-one consistent with guilt, the other consistent with innocence. Where any of these exists, the court should acquit but where they are absent, then a prima facie case has been made. Therefore, at the close of the case for the prosecution the evidence led should be capable of displacing the presumption of the innocence of the accused. It is only when this is done, that the court is justified to call on the accused to open his defence. See Tsatsu Tsikata v The Republic (2003-2005) 2 GLR 294, Ali Kassena v The State (1962) 1 GLR 144, Moshie v The Republic (1977) 1 GLR 258 and Apaloo v The Republic (1975) 1 GLR 156. Counsel for the accused also referred the court to the case of Dadie v The Republic (2008) GMJ 167 CA, The Republic v Gyamfi (2007) 13 MLRG 192 CA. The case of the prosecution per the facts attached to the charge sheet is that the Complainants in this case are couples residing at McCarthy with the accused Flora Petu Styles as their Landlady for the past three and half years. The complainants rented the apartment through the daughter of the accused, but all monthly payments are made to the accused. For sometimes now the accused has deprived the complainant of using the pipe in the house by locking it up. She also cut off their electricity line which made all their items in their fridge to spoil. On 3rd January 2017 at about 5:00am the Complainants were asleep when they heard some unusual noise on their ceiling. They woke up and saw the accused with two other men violently removing the roofing sheets from their roof. The destruction was so violent that the complainants abandoned the room and run to the Weija Police Station and lodged a report. When the police led the complainants to the house, they realized that their apartment roofs have been ripped off and the POP ceiling destroyed into the bedroom. Big stones which were used to protect the roof from ripping off by wind were all threw inside the bedroom causing extensive damage to one wardrobe value GHC 1000, assorted clothing value 500 and the POP ceiling also value GHC 400. The accused person and her accomplices also entered the room of the complainant and scattered the things in the room apparently preventing them to use the apartment again. The complainant later realized that gold bangles value GHC 3500, one Samsung smart phone value GHC 800 and one iPhone value GHC 1000 has been stolen from the room. The accused after the act ran to a nearby house and took refuge after police has called her several times upon reaching the house. Later a brother of the accused appeared and promised to produce the accused to the police. Accused was brought to the station by the brother and on interrogation she admitted that he was the one who went with those people to rip off the roof to deny the complainants any access to the apartment but could not produce those people. She however denied having committed any offence in her written statement. She was charged with the offences and put before the court. The principle is that once the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused as mandated by section 11 of the Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323 which states: "In a criminal action, the burden of producing evidence when it is on the prosecution as to a fact which is essential to guilt, requires the prosecution to produce sufficient evidence so that on the totality of the evidence a reasonable mind could find the existence of the fact beyond a reasonable doubt". It is also trite law that in a criminal case, when an accused pleads not guilty to an offence, pursuant to S.11 (2) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), the burden of proof is on the prosecution; and the standard of proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt as stated in Section 13(1) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and affirmed in the case DARKO v THE REPUBLIC [1968] GLR 203. There is no burden on the accused. See: COP v Isaac Antwi (1961) GLR 408 @ 412, Nkansah v The Republic (1980) GLR 184 The question is whether the prosecution has been able to make a prima facie case against the accused with respect to the four counts for her to open her defence. The prosecution in seeking to prove their case called PW1, Dorothy Opokua, PW2, Michael Sarpong and the investigator D/Chief Insp. Emmanuel Ntimah as PW3. The prosecution also tendered exhibit A series which are pictures of the rooms of the complainants and the house, exhibit B is the investigation caution statement of the accused, exhibit C is the charge statement of the accused and exhibit D the statement of the complainant Mary Opokua. Count 1 is causing unlawful damage contrary to section 172 (1) of Act 29 of 1960 which provides that: 1. Whoever intentionally and unlawfully causes damage to any property by any means whatsoever: a. To a value exceeding C1m shall be guilty of a misdemeanour b. To a value exceeding C1m shall be guilty of a second-degree felony. From this there must be damage to property and the damage must be intentional. PW1 giving evidence stated in paragraph 8, 9 and 10 stated that she saw the accused with two men and a lady by name Shaa forcibly removing their roof at about 5:30 am. She said later the ceiling fell into their room. They rushed to Weija Police station and when they came back their rooms were ransacked. These were some of the responses of PW1 during cross examination: Q15. You have stated in your statement that you met two men and another lady called Sha A. Sha is a name of a male and not a female Q16. I put it to you that you never saw the accused person on that day. A. I saw her Q17. Where does this Sha, he or she lives A. He used to stay in the same house I live, his room is just adjacent to my room Q18. Was he arrested by the police after the alleged crime. A. He was not arrested by the police. When we came there with the police car those who removed the roof were hiding in Sha’s room. All of a sudden, the accused came out and told the police that she ordered for the removal of the roof so they should rather take her to the police station. PW2 in his evidence stated in his witness statement paragraph 8,9,10 and 11 that he was sleeping with the wife and heard noise and they came out to see the accused together with two other men ripping our apartment, destroying their ceiling which eventually fell in the rooms and ended up destroying their belongings in the room. PW 2 during cross examinations, these were his answers: I don’t agree, because after the incidence I spent the night outside, upon my No, when the incidence happened my things got scattered and the roofing also Q78. You will agree with me that the sizes as you see in A5 could not have caused damage to your property. A. arrival I realized it had rained and the rain has destroyed my properties. Q79. So, it is your case that it was the rain that fell a day after that caused damage to your property, not so? A. fell on some of my things. Q80. You said earlier on that it rained and the rain destroyed all your properties, not so? A. caused damage. Q81. 2019, you never stated therein that it rained thereafter the alleged incident which rain caused damage to the property. A. about. I did not tell the police. we wrote our statement before the rain incident came In your exhibit D to the police as well as your witness statement filed on 3-7- I mean, it is not the roofing alone that damaged my property but also the rain fall The accused was also charged with the offence of unlawful entry. Section 152 of Act 29 which provides for the offence has it that, “Whoever unlawfully enters any building with the intention of committing a crime therein shall be guilty of a second degree felony. PW1 in paragraph 10 and 11 of her witness statement said they rush to Weija Police station to lodge a complaint and on their return their rooms had been ransacked and PW2 stated something similar. It is instructive to note that both PW1 and PW2, throughout their evidence-in-chief never stated the accused entered any part of their room and did see the accused entering or leaving their room. This was the answer PW1 gave when she was asked the question. Q96. A. I am further putting it to you that the accused never entered your room She came to my room because whatever that was going on at that time was the instructions from the accused and therefore, I will say that she was the one that came to my room so those who were on the roof entered my room and now I cannot see those people, so it means that it is the accused. Count 3 was stealing contrary to section 124 of Act 29 which states that whoever steals shall be guilty of a second-degree felony. Section 125 defines the offence thus: “A person steals who dishonestly appropriates a thing of which that person is not the owner”. It is required of the prosecution to prove these ingredients of the offence, namely: a. The accused is not the owner of the thing. b. The accused appropriated it. c. The appropriation is dishonest. From the evidence it has been proven that the complainant did not see the accused enter her room. In the same vain there is no evidence that links the accused to stealing any of the properties of the complainant and no evidence of the accused appropriating the property of the complainant. The witnesses of the prosecution PW1, PW2 and PW3, the investigator in their evidence before the court did not link the accused to the offence. There was no evidence that the accused was found in the room of the complainant, no evidence that any of the items stolen were found with the accused whether on her as a person when arrested or in her room in the house. Count 4: Inducing a Tenant to quit contrary to section 27 (1) of Act 220 of 1963, which provides that “Every person who shall do any act whatsoever, or refrain from doing anything which the conducts of the tenancy require him to do, with intent to compel the lessee of any premises to give up possession thereof shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction by the appropriate Rent Magistrate, be liable to a fine. From the evidence on record, it is PW1 who rented the premises and in paragraph 4 of her witness statement, she stated she knows the accused as her landlady. She said further that one Monica the daughter of the accused led her to rent a chamber and hall self-contain from the accused. She said she has been leaving there for the past 5 years and ever since she took occupation of the apartment the accused has been harassing her even though all these years, she was still leaving in the house. PW1 did not give any evidence what the accused was doing or did not do per their tenancy, which was intentional on the part of the accused seeking her to give up possession of the premises. PW1 did not provide any evidence with respect to that, and she was still in possession of the premises. From the above and in consideration of the evidence adduced, the ingredients of the offences stated supra has not been proven by the prosecution at all and the evidence of the prosecution has been discredited through cross examination and unreliable. It is trite law that the onus of proof, which is always on prosecution, if that onus is not successfully discharged, a submission of no case should be upheld. See Donkor vrs The State (1964) GLR 598 SC and Nyarko vrs The State (1963) 2GLR 59 SC. Therefore, the accused cannot be called upon to open her defence and counsel for the accused person’s submission of no case is upheld. The accused is accordingly acquitted. SGD HIS HONOUR KWABENA KODUA OBIRI-YEBOAH, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. 7