JUDGEMENT

SOWAH, J.A:

The appellant together with three others were charged on one count with Conspiracy to rob contrary to sections 23(1) and 149 of The Criminal Code 1960, Act 29 and two counts with Robbery contrary to section 149 of Act 29. They were found guilty after a jury trial and on 29^th July 2003 they were each sentenced to 25 years IHL to run concurrently.

The appellant herein who was the 4^th accused person at the trial court is appealing sentence pursuant to leave granted by this court. The two grounds of appeal filed on 2^nd November 2015 are as follows:

1. The appellant regrets his action and it is out of deep remorse that he is praying for mitigation of sentence.

2. The appellant is a first time offender, who has learnt his lesson in prison and vows to keep away from all forms of crime in the future.

It is noted that on the Record of Appeal, a Notice of Appeal appears to have been filed on 27^th August 2003 by a law firm in respect of all the convicts. In that Notice, the appellants were seeking a reversal of the verdict of “guilty” and an acquittal of the appellants. There is no indication as to what happened to that Appeal. However as earlier stated, the appellant applied to this court on 26^th October 2015 for leave to file an Appeal out of time. Same was duly granted whereupon he filed A Notice of Appeal in mitigation of sentence on 2^nd November 2015. He is praying that this appellate Court tempers justice with mercy and kindly reduce the sentence to the minimum. The appeal before this court is therefore an appeal in respect of sentence only, a fact which was confirmed by the appellant when the appeal was called on 15^th December 2015.

Section 149 of Act 29/60 under which the appellant was convicted in 2003 provides for a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than ten years for robbery and a minimum term of fifteen years if the offence was committed by the use of an offensive weapon. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment

In sentencing the convicts, the learned trial judge stated his reasons for imposing the 25 year term of imprisonment. He stated as follows at page 144 of the Record of appeal:

“I think it is common knowledge that robbery or armed robbery has been a bother for the peace of Ghanaians of late. It is regrettable that the accused persons who are not Ghanaians decided to abuse the Ghanaian hospitality to commit these heinous crimes. I think PW1, PW2 and PW5 were saved from death by the Almighty God. However I take note of the fact that the accused persons are young men and have been in custody since 29/12/2000. In all the circumstances, I will sentence each accused on each charge to twenty-five (25) years I.H.L. to run concurrently. …”

Factors which a court is entitled to consider in determining the length of sentence have been discussed extensively in several Supreme Court decisions. They include the intrinsic seriousness of the offence, the degree of revulsion felt by law abiding citizens of the society for the particular crime, the premeditation with which the criminal plan was executed and the prevalence of the crime within the particular locality where the offence took place, or in the country generally, the sudden increase in the incidents of the particular crime and mitigating or aggravating circumstances such as extreme youth, good character and the violent manner in which the offence was committed.A punitive or a deterrent or exemplary sentence may be imposed so as to indicate the disapproval of society of that offence where the court finds an offence to be grave.

See: Frimpong alias Iboman vs. Republic [2012]  SCGLR 297

The Republic vs. Adu-Boahen, [1972] GLR 70-78

Kwashie vs. The Republic [1971] 1 GLR 488

Thus the factors that the trial judge took into account before sentencing, namely, the gravity of the offence, the revulsion of society for the particular crime of armed robbery, as well as the youth of the convicts, are among the acceptable factors that a court is to consider in imposing sentence.

Under section 30(a) (ii) of the Courts Act 1998, Act 459, an appellate court may in appropriate cases reduce or increase a sentence on appeal. However there are settled principles on which the appellate court can so act. One such basic principle is that an appellate court will not interfere with a sentence of a lower court unless the sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case or wrong in principle.

In the present case on appeal, it was established at the trial that the appellant and his co-accused, all Nigerians, came to Ghana and went all the way from Accra purposely to commit a series of robberies at Tarkwa and Benso. They had in their possession a gun, an axe and other implements. They forcibly entered the premises of their victims, attacked them, and inflicted serious injuries on some of them. They stole various items from the victims. The crime was pre-meditated and carried out without mercy. As was noted by the trial judge some of the victims; PW1, PW2 and PW5 were saved from death only by the grace of God.

Having re-evaluated the entire proceedings in this present case, we are satisfied that the sentence of 25 years IHL imposed by the trial court was appropriate in the circumstance.

We accordingly dismiss the appeal as lacking merit.