Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

DABLA AND OTHERS V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The third appellant conspires with both the first and second appellant to break
into a van carrying cigarettes to steal. Later on, they meet the fourth appellant on
their way who accompanies them to their heist.
Issues:
Whether or not the judge breached the principle of Presumption of Innocence.
Holding:
The circuit court judge, he anticipated before hearing the evidence by imposing

1
 Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

MELFA V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The appellants tried to stop a fight between the deceased and another. In the
course of his actions, the deceased attacks the appellant and makes further
violent advancements on him. The appellant eventually stabs the deceased.
Issues:
 Whether or not the sentence imposed on the appellant was harsh and
excessive
Holdings:
The sentence was indeed harsh and excessive in consideration to all the facts of

2
 Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

KWASHIE AND ANOTHER V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The appellant (a police officer) in corporation with two other police officers (the
appellants) seizes smuggled goods and took them into private custody rather than
the police station intending to later sell for profit.
Issues:
Whether or not the sentence imposed on the first appellant was excessive.
Whether or not a judge is obligated to give reason for the sentence imposed.
Holdings:
No. in actual fact, a police who commits a crime must be given severe punishment

3
 Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

SAMUEL AGOE MILLS V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The disabled appellant before convicted with five others with conspiracy and
unauthorized possession of narcotics was held in remand for two years. His
sentence after the conviction was twelve (12) years imprisonment with hard labor
after an appeal to reduce his sentence from 15 years I.H.L.
Issues:
 Whether or not the court took into consideration the disability of the
applicant before his sentence.
 Whether or not the court properly applied the period of remand of the
applicant before his conviction and sentence.
 Whether or not the grant for the plea for the reduction to a minimal
sentence in consideration to the remand period and disability of the
appellant relevant.
Holding:
Based on the sentence given by the lower court, it did not give consideration to
the appellant’s disability. However, the Court of Appeal, revised the sentence by
reducing it in consideration to his disability.
The court however did not indicate the application of the period of remand in the
sentence. The court is not obliged to disclose reasons to sentences it gives, hence
the court has the power to exercise discretion to reasons of sentences it imposes.
The applicant’s plea for a grant to reduction of sentence is relevant, in
consideration to the period in remand and his disability. The appellant has been
held 2 clean years in remand hence appeals that commencement of sentence

4
 Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

TINIEYE AND ANOTHER V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The appellants stole items from the complainant and sold them for a profit.
Whiles in police custody, they were only allowed to present personal confession
statements without their ability to seek legal consult.
Issues:
 Whether or not their constitutional right to seek legal consult was
breached.
 Whether or not the statement of the appellants were inadmissible.
Holdings:
The rights of the appellants to seek legal breached, according to article 15 (2) of
the Constitution, 1969.
The statements presented by the appellants could not be held as inadmissible.
This is because, even though they were not informed about their rights to obtain
legal consult, the nature of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Decree, 1975
(S.M.C.D. 3), points out the significance of the statement of the appellants, even

5
 Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

ADU BOAHENE V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The appellant in cooperation with two others attacked the victim on his way
home from his petrol station. The victim reported the case upon identifying the
appellant requested his arrest. The appellant denied these allegations and was
convicted by the jury. He appealed against his conviction on the grounds of
insufficient evidence.
Issues:
 Whether or not the holding of an identification parade and proof of
personal characteristics of the appellant was relevant.
 Whether or not the sentence given to thee appellant was excessive
considering his good record.
Holdings:
No it was irrelevant. This is because the identifying witness has known the
appellant for about two and a half years prior to the event, therefore his
testimony of identification was enough.
Secondly, the sentence is not excessive in consideration to his good record
because, the offence was intense and it deserved such necessary punishment

6
 Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

AMANIAMPONG V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The appellants after being convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and
robbery, they pleaded twice, subsequently on the reduction of the sentences
imposed on them.
Issues:
 Whether or not the appeal against conviction was sufficiently considered.
 Whether or not the sentence was harsh and excessive.
Holdings:
The reason for the conviction was backed by the meanings and interpretations of
the offences committed by the appellant by sections 23(1) and 149 of the criminal
code, 1960 [ACT 29] as amended by Act 646 respectively. However, the offences
where contrary to such Acts.
On the first appeal to reduction of sentence, the courts deemed it as harsh and
reduced it. But to the second appeal for reductions, the court sees it to be

7
 Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

APALOO AND OTHERS V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The first appellant, bought a printing machine and hired a criminal to
assist him in printing fake currency notes. He was eventually caught
with items used in printing the fake currencies and lies about the
machine.
Issues:
 Whether or not the mere possession of items used in making
counterfeit bank notes contrary to Act 242 must be implemented
in this case.
Holding:
The procedure of the cross-examination of witnesses for the
prosecution on their previous police statement was that laid down in

8
 Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

ASAMOAH V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The appellant refused to sell an item at controlled price fixed by the Price Control
(Maximum Prices) Order, 1969 (E.I. 135 of 1969), contrary to sections 1 and 2 of
the Control of Prices Act, 1962 (Act 113). Later on the Act 113 is repealed and
replaced by N.R.C.D 17. However, she was charged for committing a crime
contrary to Act 113.
Issues:
 Whether or not the enactment under which the charges were brought was
in existence.
o If it was, was it bad in law for the court to have convicted the
appellant?
Holdings:
Whether or not the law was in existence was irrelevant because it will not make
the charge defective. Notwithstanding, what was considered at the time the
offence was alleged was known to the law. Meanwhile it was technical error to
quote the repealed act instead of N.R.C.D. 17.

9
 Ohemaa Serwaa Osei Tutu

GLIGAH & ATISO V. THE REPUBLIC

Facts:
The victim, a trader, during her daily hawking was called to the police station and
was raped by two police officers. She reported to her friends who followed her to
the police station and eventually brought up the matter for investigation.
Issues:
 Whether or not the victim was raped.
 Whether or not the accused persons carnally knew the victim
Holdings:
Evidence given by the second prosecution witness, a medical doctor after
intensive medical examinations proves that the victim had been carnally known.
By testimony of the genuine evidences given by the 5th and 6th prosecution
witness, the Police Constable Class one and the Chief Inspector respectively, the

10