|
J U D G M E N T:
The Appellant herein was on the
30th day of December,
2010 arraigned before the
Circuit Court, Accra. He was
charged with a count of
Possessing Narcotic Drug without
Lawful Authority Contrary to
Section 2(1) of PNDCL. 236/90.
When the charge was read and
explained to him in the Hausa
Language, he pleaded Guilty
simplicter. The court
accordingly convicted him on his
own plead after listening to the
facts that grounded the charge.
He was subsequently sentenced to
the minimum sentence prescribed
by the Law for the offence which
is ten (10) years imprisonment
in hard labour.
The facts of the
case as given to the trial court
by the Prosecution may thus be
summed up. The narcotic unit of
the C.I.D. headquarters embarked
upon an operation on 23rd
December, 2010 around Tudu area
of Accra to clamp down on the
activities of drug peddlers and
users. The Appellant was
arrested in the process even
though he put up a fierce
resistance. His pocket was
searched and twenty-seven (27)
wrappers of whitish substance
suspected to be cocaine was
found. Also found on the
Appellant was a partly smoked
dried leaves suspected to be
Indian Hemp.
This appeal is being
contested on two (2) main
grounds namely:
“(1) That the Appellant did not
appreciate or understand the
charge or procedure thus pleaded
guilty by mistake leading to his
conviction.
(2) The petitioner/appellant is
remorseful pleading for
leniency and prays for a
mitigation of sentence
Arguing the first
ground of appeal, lawyer for the
Appellant contended that the
Appellant who was unrepresented
at the trial thought he was
being charged in relation to the
partly smoked Indian Hemp. He
made reference to the cases of
Darkurugu vrs The Republic
[1989-90] G.L.R. 308 and Alpha
Zambrama vrs The Republic [1976]
1 G.L.R. ] 291 to buttress his
argument.
The learned State
Attorney disputed the fact that
the Appellant did not appreciate
the charge and therefore pleaded
by mistake. She contended that
from the proceedings the
Appellant knew what he was
about.
I have myself read
the proceedings of this case and
I do not have any doubt in my
mind that the Appellant clearly
understood the charge and the
procedure before pleading
guilty. Indeed after his
conviction the trial judge
offered him the opportunity to
plead in mitigation of his
sentence. At this stage, the
Appellant stated as follows:-
“I don’t challenge that the
narcotics was found on me. I
only pray for mercy. And I also
want to bring to the attention
of the court that when I was
arrested I was beaten. But as I
said I don’t want to waste the
court’s time as I am guilty.”
From the prayer of
the Appellant to be dealt with
leniently by the trial court,
there can be no basis for saying
that the Appellant did not
appreciate or understand the
procedure and charge. In fact
he re-emphasized his guilt even
when pleading to be death with
mercy.
The next ground is a
plea in mitigation of sentence.
The offence charged is
possession of narcotic drug
without lawful authority. The
punishment for the said offence
has been prescribed by statute.
No court has the power to give
or impose on a convicted person
any sentence less than the
minimum.
The minimum
sentence for the offence the
Appellant was convicted of is
ten (10) years imprisonment and
that was what the learned trial
judge imposed upon the
appellant. This court cannot
under any circumstance go below
the said sentence.
It is from all the
above that I hold that this
appeal must fail. And the same
is hereby dismissed.
(sgd.) M.H. LOGOH
JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.
gan/@
|
