Republic Vrs Dennis Aidoo [2022] GHACC 286 (6 December 2022)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GHANA HELD IN ACCRA ON TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HER HONOUR ROSEMARY BAAH TOSU(MRS) – CIRCUIT COOURT JUDGE. COURT CASE NO: D21/308/2022 THE REPUBLIC VS DENNIS AIDOO …………………………………………………………………………………… RULING …………………………………………………………………………………… Accused is charged with the Offences of Deceiving Public Officer contrary to Section 251 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960 (Act 29) and Causing Harm contrary to section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, Act 29. He pleads Not Guilty to both charges. PROSECUTION’S CASE Prosecution says that Accused is a Bolt driver whilst Complainant is a Commercial sex worker. On the 18th March, 2022 at about 2: 30 am, Complainant and her friend, one Godstime Victor were in front of Body Fitness Centre at Dansoman soliciting for clients. Accused who was then in charge of Kia Picanto with registration number, GN 1325- 19 parked close to them and signaled them. Complainant went to Accused who inquired about the price of her services. The parties bargained from GH¢250 to GH¢150. Accused drove the Complainant from Sahara Dansoman and finally took her to Tunga. Accused got down to call a friend to open the gate but there was no response. Complainant got upset and insisted that if Accused was not serious then he should take her back to where he picked up. Accused got angry and got back into the car. On the way, however, Accused suddenly stopped the car, pulled out a knife from under his seat and inflicted deep wounds on Complainant. Complainant started to shout for help whilst struggling with Accused. He took a stone, hit Complainant and she fell into a nearby gutter. Accused run away from the scene, however, he met a patrol team which was headed in their direction. Accused lied that he had picked up Complainant and her friend to a hotel and they had attempted to rob him of his vehicle. Prosecution relied on the evidence of two witnesses, PW1 is complainant, Sophia Johnson and PW2, the investigator, Detective Inspector Francis Deku. PW1’s evidence is sufficiently provided in the facts as presented by Prosecution. She however further testified that accused when he decided to return her to the Body Fitness Centre, threatened her and asked her if she thought she was wise. He then pulled out a knife which PW1 held, causing the cut in her palm. After being cut in her palm, PW1 says Accused attempted to stab her again, she bit his hand and the knife fell out of his hand. Accused used a stone to hit her. She fell into a gutter and shouted for help. PW2 testified that on the 18th March, 2022 at around 3:50 am, whilst on duty at Dansoman, the Dansoman Patrol Team came in with Accused who was the Complainant and PW1, who was the suspect, based on the information Accused gave to the patrol team when they were called to the scene. Both parties were injured. Accused story was that PW1 and her friend, a Nigerian guy attempted to rob him of his vehicle, in the struggle, PW1’s palm was cut. In the ensuing confusion, the Nigerian guy run away. Based on the allegations Accused levelled against PW1, he was given a medical form to go to the hospital, whilst Accused was detained, however, PW1, never returned with the medical form. PW1 was also taken to the hospital for medical attention due to her injuries. PW2 tendered the following documents in evidence  Exhibit A -Statutory statement of Accused  Exhibit B - Cautioned statement of Accused  Exhibit B1 - Further statement of Accused  Exhibit C- Charge statement of Accused  Exhibit D – Medical Report of PW1  Exhibit E- Picture of bloodied knife  Exhibit F- Picture of wounded PW1. CHARGES AGAINST ACCUSED Accused is charged with Deceiving a Public Officer. Section 251 provides ‘A person commits a misdemeanor who, with intent to defeat, obstruct, or prevent the course of justice, or the due execution of the law, or evade the requirements of the law, or to defraud or injure a person, or to obtain or assist in or facilitate the obtaining of any passport, instrument, concession, appointment, permission or any other privilege or advantage, endeavors to deceive or to overreach a public officer acting in the execution of a public office or duty by personation, or by any false instrument, document, seal, signature or by a false statement, declaration or assurance, whether written or verbal or by any written or verbal statement, declaration or assurance did not have good reason to believe to be true.’ The elements Prosecution needs to prove are 1. That the complainant is a public officer 2. That the Accused endeavored to deceive or overreach the complainant a public officer 3. That at the time of such endeavor the public officer was acting in the execution of his public office or duty 4. That Accused endeavored to deceive or overreach such public officer by means which is false to his knowledge by any false statement or declaration whether verbal or written which is false to Accused person’s knowledge 5. That Accused had the necessary specific intent In order to prove all these elements against Accused, there must be a complainant, who is a public officer first and foremost. The offence refers to a specific public officer. Prosecution in their particulars of Offence refer to Accused having deceived the generality of Dansoman Police. The question is which Police officers specifically were deceived. Is it the patrol team members or PW2 and his officers at the Dansoman Police station? It is not clear, if Prosecution cannot identify this public officer who was deceived, they obviously cannot prove the other elements of this offence. Accused is acquitted on this charge, Prosecution has failed to prove the elements sufficiently against Accused. Accused is further charged with Causing Harm to PW1, contrary to section 69 of the Criminal Offences Act. 1960 (Act 29). Section 69 of Act 29 provides that ‘A person who intentionally and unlawfully causes harm to another person commits a second degree felony.’ In a charge of causing harm, the Prosecution must prove that the Accused caused harm which was unlawful and that the harm was caused intentionally. The Prosecution’s burden after close of their case is to make out a prima facie case against an Accused but not to prove an Accused person’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The authorities are clear that at this stage of trial a Court’s duty is only to determine and act on the import of the evidence adduced and not to conclude on its positive weight. The question to ask is if the evidence provided by Prosecution is of such a quality that the Court finds the essential elements of the offence as presented. To this question, my answer is yes. Accused has not denied causing harm to PW1 and such harm was without her consent nor lawful at least from the evidence presented by Prosecution. I find the elements of Causing Harm sufficiently proven by Prosecution. Accused is called upon to open his defence on the charge of Causing Harm at the next sitting of this Court. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE (SGD) H/H ROSEMARY BAAH TOSU (MRS) 4