Charles Tetteh Vrs The Republic [2022] GHAHC 89 (7 December 2022)

Page 1 of 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (COURT 1) HO HELD ON WEDNESDAY 7 DEC. 2022 BEFORE JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J. CHARLES TETTEH …… …… …… } …. APPELLANT CASE NO. F22/12/2022 VRS THE REPUBLIC ……. …… ….. } …. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ON CRIMINAL APPEAL Upon leave of the Court dated 22 November 2022, the appellant filed the notice of appeal a day after, that is, 23 November 2022. The appeal is just for the mitigation of the sentence, on grounds that “the 12 years sentence is harsh”, and that besides, the appellant is “a first time offender”. The appellant was on 17 April 2019 convicted by the Circuit Court Ho for having on 28 September 2017 been found by the police in possession of a narcotic drug, cannabis Sativa without lawful authority contrary to s.2(1) Narcotic Drug (Control, Enforcement, and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDC Law 236). The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial circuit court judge found otherwise and convicted the appellant of the offence and sentenced him to 12 years IHL. It is this decision of the court in sentencing the appellant to 12 years that the appellant feels dissatisfied and has appealed on grounds that it is harsh and that he is a first offender. 1 | P a g e Page 2 of 5 I have read the judgment of the trial court. The learned trial judge dutifully and vividly recited the proceedings of the court and most importantly the ingredients required for the proof of the charge or evidence thereof from both parties. The judge concluded at the close of the case that the charges were soundly proven. That is, the court established that the appellant was not only found to be in possession of a substance the Forensic Laboratory proved to be narcotic Sativa, packed in a saloon car but also that the appellant knew the contents of what was neatly packed in hidden compartments of the saloon car as that of narcotic and its nature as harmful. Besides, the trial court found that the appellant failed to show lawful authority or justification to have possession of the narcotic. By the evidence adduced and as captured in the judgment of the trial court, I find the judgement of the trial court as sound and based on law, indeed beautifully crafted. The appellant does not contest his conviction, but rather the 12-year sentence the trial court imposed, which the appellant describes as harsh on grounds mainly that he is a first-offender. The law under which the accused was prosecuted contains the punishment of a minimum of ten years upon conviction of the offence. Section 2(2) of the law – the Narcotic Drug (Control, Enforcement, and Sanctions) Act, 1990 (PNDC Law 236) provides that: (2) A person found guilty of an offense under subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years. (Emphasis added) I need to emphasize here that the prescriptive minimum sentence for the conviction of the offences is ten years. There is no prescriptive ceiling beyond which a trial court cannot go in sentencing a person that had been convicted of the 2 | P a g e Page 3 of 5 offence. Whilst no court in Ghana is permitted under any circumstances to sentence a person convicted of the charge to a term below ten years, the opposite is that depending on the circumstance of the commission of the offence, a trial court can go in for any maximum term of sentence. I take notice that before leashing out the 12-year sentence the learned trial judge took into consideration the “accused’s plea to temper justice with mercy, and also considering the fact the accused is not known which means that he is [a] first time offender”. In essence therefore what the appellant is presenting here in this appeal that he is a first-time offender was dutifully considered by the trial before imposing the 12-year sentence. The meaning is that the learned trial judge might have possibly gone in for a much higher sentence but for the knowledge of the fact that the appellant is not known criminally by the police. That is the appellant does have any criminal record with the police, and this possibly might be his maiden brush with the law. I do not agree with the appellant that the 12-year sentence was harsh under the circumstances of the commission of the offence. By the nature of the commission of the offence, the learned trial judge could justifiably have gone for a much higher sentence. I say this because I find that the accused was insincere when he denied committing the offence. The facts of the case and the evidence produced before the trial court show that the appellant failed to stop at the police checkpoint when the police upon suspicion ordered him to stop the saloon car he was driving for inspection. He chose to speed off. The police resorted to giving the appellant a chase on a motorbike with the associated risks when the police officer ultimately put his life at risk by resorting to cross the appellant to compel the appellant who was behind the wheel to stop. The appellant did bring the car to a halt. He was 3 | P a g e Page 4 of 5 guided back to the police checkpoint where a search by the police revealed quantities of neatly packed dried leaves I have found were tested and established to be cannabis sativa of a considerable high street value. Considering the nature of the commission of the offence, the appellant did not put in a guilty plea upon his arrest both at the police station and the court but rather chose to put up a spirited defence by subjecting the judicial process to its full- length trial. I wonder why people do not show honesty in owning up and showing sincere remorse upon their arrest upon suspicion of having committed a crime they know or ought to know they have committed but rather put the judicial process in such avoidable waste. Such persons including the appellant in this circumstance, I am afraid deserve no mercy. Considering the circumstances of the commission of the offence, as well as the appellant’s attitude and posture at the trial court, I find nothing amiss in the sentence as the appellant's no-criminal record as a mitigating factor was duly considered by the learned trial judge. Therefore, I find no legitimate basis to disturb the 12 years sentence, which I find was within the powers of the trial court to pass. My view is that the appellant must rather be thankful to the learned trial judge for the 12-year sentence. As an appellate court, I have the power to enhance the sentence but I will decide not to apply the power. I shall rather choose not to disturb the sentence of the trial court and to dismiss the appeal as without any merit. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Ordered accordingly.1 The end of the judgment in this criminal appeal – Charles Tetteh v The Republic (Case No. F22/12/2022) 4 | P a g e (SGD.) GEORGE BUADI, J. HIGH COURT (1) Ho Lawyers No legal representation from either side. Page 5 of 5 5 | P a g e