|
Criminal law - Narcotic drugs -
Importation of - Whether
reformed character and being a
first offender humbly warrant
reduction of the sentence
HEADNOTES
On 29 March, 2012 the Court of
Appeal confirmed the conviction
and sentences imposed upon the
appellant herein by the High
Court Accra on 13 April 2007 for
the offences of conspiracy to
import narcotic drugs,
importation of narcotic drugs,
conspiracy to possess narcotic
drugs and possession of narcotic
drugs. The appellant claiming to
have been aggrieved by the said
orders of the CA appealed to us
in the exercise of his
unfettered constitutional right
praying for a reduction of
concurrent sentences of 25 years
IHL on each of the three counts
he was charged with -
HELD :-
As the sentences have not been
proved to be improper or
unwarranted, we reject the
invitation contained in the
grounds of appeal and dismiss
the appeal there from. In the
result, we affirm the sentence
of 25 years IHL imposed by the
trial court and affirmed by the
learned justices of the CA.
STATUTES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Kwashie v The Republic [1971] 1
GLR 488,
R v Bernard [1977] 1 CR App R
(S) 135
BOOKS REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING THE LEADING JUDGMENT
GBADEGBE JSC:-
COUNSEL.
OLIVER ATSU ABADA FOR THE
APPELLANT
ASIAMAH SAMPONG (CHIEF STATE
ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
GBADEGBE JSC:-
On 29 March, 2012 the
Court of Appeal confirmed the
conviction and sentences imposed
upon the appellant herein by the
High Court Accra on 13 April
2007 for the offences of
conspiracy to import narcotic
drugs, importation of narcotic
drugs, conspiracy to possess
narcotic drugs and possession of
narcotic drugs. The appellant
claiming to have been aggrieved
by the said orders of the CA
appealed to us in the exercise
of his unfettered constitutional
right praying for a reduction of
concurrent sentences of 25 years
IHL on each of the three counts
he was charged with. In the
notice of appeal originating
these proceedings filed pursuant
to leave granted by the CA, the
appellant urged the following
grounds
1.
The appellant on the basis
of his reformed character and
being a first offender humbly
prays for reduction of the
sentence.
2.
The appellant has learnt
valuable lessons for the ten
(10) years period served in
prison and his life has
undergone a tremendous positive
reformation.
3.
The appellant’s health
condition is deteriorating,
having been diagnosed for optic
cancer and other health
complications.
From the grounds of appeal
filed by the appellant in these
proceedings, the only question
for our decision is whether the
sentence imposed on him by the
trial court and affirmed by the
CA are harsh and not justified
having regard to the
circumstances of the offence and
the offender as have been
reiterated in a collection of
cases dealing with the correct
approach to sentencing.
Reference is made to the case of
Kwashie v The Republic [1971] 1
GLR 488, a case which was
considered by the learned
justices of the CA in the
judgment which is on appeal to
us. It repays to state that in
their consideration, the learned
justices of the CA at page 22 of
their very well-reasoned
judgment which appears at page
383 of the record of appeal in
this matter, painstakingly made
reference to what we consider to
be the applicable factors in
determining the nature of
sentence to be passed by a court
of competent jurisdiction after
conviction and we wish to say
without any reservation that
there cannot be any legitimate
ground of complaint in respect
of their approach to the
question of sentence at all. The
invitation pressed on us by the
appellant concerns matters which
from the grounds of appeal to
which reference was made earlier
in this delivery are unrelated
to the nature of the offence and
the circumstances of the
offender as at the time of the
commission of the crime.
The grounds of appeal in
these proceedings are quite
frankly irrelevant to a
determination as to the
severity, harshness or
unreasonableness of a sentence
of imprisonment imposed by a
court on an appellant as they do
not raise any issue that is in
its nature mitigating
circumstances which we might
take into account in reducing
the sentences imposed on the
appellant. We are of the opinion
that the matters raised in the
three (3) grounds of appeal are
properly speaking not grounds of
appeal at all as they do not in
relation to an appeal against
sentence direct our minds to any
of the known grounds on which an
appellate court and indeed, the
final appellate court might
intervene to reduce a sentence.
We think that the matters
alluded to in the said grounds
belong to a purely
administrative or executive
process that might be initiated
in the nature of a remission of
sentence, a process that is
quite distinct and separate from
the exercise by us of a judicial
function.
Dealing with the said
matters, we are of the view that
learned counsel for the
Republic/Respondent, the learned
Chief State Attorney was right
when she invited us by reference
to the case of R v Bernard
[1977] 1 CR App R (S) 135 not
to yield to the contention of
the appellant. We are of the
opinion that if the matters
raised in the grounds of appeal
before us were to be legitimate
factors that might weigh on the
minds of appellate courts in
determining the question of
sentence to be passed on a
convicted person, it would
undermine the settled practice
of courts that the question of
the appropriate sentence is one
for the trial court and
undermine the authority of trial
courts who are primarily seised
with the relevant factors that
can be utilized in sentencing.
But that is not all. It would
also while seeking to exercise
an appellate jurisdiction,
provide appellate courts with
matters outside the scope of
trial courts which can be taken
into account in passing sentence
and render the nature of the
appellate jurisdiction, quite
unconcerned with the facts and
circumstances which might have
formed the basis of the sentence
imposed upon an appellant.
Additionally, the question
arising from such purely factual
matters which are extraneous to
the record of appeal on which
the appeal herein is based, is
how does the court verify such
self-serving matters which were
contained in a grounds of appeal
settled by the appellant
himself?
As the sentences have not
been proved to be improper or
unwarranted, we reject the
invitation contained in the
grounds of appeal and dismiss
the appeal therefrom. In the
result, we affirm the sentence
of 25 years IHL imposed by the
trial court and affirmed by the
learned justices of the CA.
(SGD) N. S.
GBADEGBE
(JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT)
(SGD) ANIN YEBOAH
(JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT)
(SGD) P. BAFFOE-BONNIE
(JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT)
(SGD) V. AKOTO
BAMFO
(JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT)
(SGD) G. PWAMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT)
COUNSEL
OLIVER ATSU ABADA FOR THE
APPELLANT
ASIAMAH SAMPONG (CHIEF STATE
ATTORNEY) FOR THE RESPONDENT |
