Sentencing in Ghana case law.

The age of a convict is not a determinative factor in sentencing and the Appellant’s claim of ailing health lacks sufficient evidence from the record to warrant any judicious consideration.

CHARLES ANSAH vs. THE REPUBLIC CRIMINAL APPEAL J3/02/2025 [2025] SLR (SC) 10 · Supreme Court · 2025 · DARKO ASARE JSC

The Courts have severally held that the exercise of the power of sentencing lay entirely within the discretion of the trial court and provided the sentence falls within the maximum permitted by the statute creating the offence and the trial judge duly considered those matters that should go in mitigation of the sentence, an appellate court should not disturb the sentence only because it would have felt disposed to imposing a lighter sentence. See the cases of KOMEGBE V THE REPUBLIC (1992) 2 GLR 370 and ABU V THE REPUBLIC (1980) GCR 294 Banda v Republic [1975] 1 GLR 52; and Haruna v The Republic [1980] GLR 189.

CHARLES ANSAH vs. THE REPUBLIC CRIMINAL APPEAL J3/02/2025 [2025] SLR (SC) 10 · Supreme Court · 2025 · DARKO ASARE JSC

The principles upon which this court acts on an appeal against sentence are well-settled. It does not interfere with sentence on the mere ground that if members of the court had been trying the appellant they might have passed a somewhat different sentence. The court will interfere with a sentence only when it is of the opinion either that the sentence is manifestly excessive, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, or that the sentence is wrong in principle.

CHARLES ANSAH vs. THE REPUBLIC CRIMINAL APPEAL J3/02/2025 [2025] SLR (SC) 10 · Supreme Court · 2025 · DARKO ASARE JSC

As a result, an appellate court can only interfere in the sentence if it was not made within the limits allowed by law or was out of all proportion to the offence committed having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

BREMPONG II V. THE REPUBLIC [1995] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 1995 · BENIN JA

This clear constitutional provision enjoins judges, when passing sentence, to take any period spent in lawful custody before the conclusion of the trial into account. A legitimate question which might arise in any given case which does, indeed, arise from consideration in this instant appeal, is how do we arrive at the conclusion that this constitutional mandate has been complied with? We believe this is discernible from the record of appeal. We would not attempt to lay down any hard and fast rules as to the form, manner or language in which the compliance should be stated, but the fact of compliance must either explicitly or implicitly be clear on the face of the record of appeal. Admittedly, the more explicitly the court expresses the position that it has taken into account the said period, the better it is for everyone as it places the question beyond every controversy and leaves no room for doubt. Nonetheless, we think that any reference to the period spent in custody before the conclusion of the trial in a manner that suggests that it weighed on the judge’s mind before deciding on the sentence should be sufficient.

MUSTAPHA IDDRISU vs. THE REPUBLIC Suit No. CRIMINAL APPEAL J3/11/2023 [2025] SLR (SC) 8 · Supreme Court · 2025 · KWOFIE JSC

Offences of this gravity usually call for deterrent sentences which would teach others like the appellants that crimes of this sort would not be tolerated and would be severely punished. But the general principle is that a sentence of imprisonment, even though intended specifically as a general deterrence, must not be excessive in relation to the facts of the offence.

APALOO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC [1975] 1 GLR 156 [1975] SLR (SC) 1 · Supreme Court · 1975 · AZU CRABBE CJ

As to his appeal against sentence the court is of the opinion that the first appellant was the evil genius behind this elaborate fraud and it is necessary in a serious case of this nature that a heavy sentence be imposed in order to check the defrauding of banks of such huge sums of money.

THE STATE v. AGYEMAN, ASEM AND BOAMONO [1962] 2 GLR 67 [1962] SLR (SC) 37 · Supreme Court · 1962 · CRABBE JSC

The more recognized factors that may guide the court in imposing appropriate sentence include factors like, the intrinsic seriousness, severity or gravity of the offense, the degree of revulsion felt by law-abiding citizens toward the particular crime, the prevalence of the crime and its sudden increase, in the locality or country as a whole. In addition, the Court may also take into account any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, such as extreme youth, good character, or the violent manner in which the offense was committed.

CHARLES ANSAH vs. THE REPUBLIC CRIMINAL APPEAL J3/02/2025 [2025] SLR (SC) 10 · Supreme Court · 2025 · DARKO ASARE JSC

We are therefore of the opinion that, once the guilt of an accused person has been established in a criminal trial using the accepted standard and or burden of proof, the issue of punishment must be considered using different criteria. This is because, in imposing sentence on a convicted person, the courts normally take into consideration factors such as whether the sentence is of a deterrent, reformative, or retributive nature. Sometimes, the criminal and previous antecedents of the accused are taken into consideration. We are however of the opinion that the time has come for courts of law to take into consideration the status and type of profession and or work the accused person does before sentence is imposed.

G/CPL VALENTINO GLIGAH AND EC/1 ABDULAI AZIZ ATISO V. THE REPUBLIC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. J3/4/2009 [2010] SLR (SC) 1 · Supreme Court · 2010 · DOTSE JSC

The determination of the length of sentence within the statutory maximum sentence is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and the courts always act upon the principle that the sentence imposed must bear some relation to the gravity of the offence: see R. v. Connolly [1959] Crim. L.R. 530, C.C.A. An offence which is of a very grave nature merits severe punishment: see R. v. Enahoro (1947) 12 W.A.C.A. 194 at p. 197; and also Awuah v. Commissioner of Police (1950) 13 W.A.C.A. 1 at p. 3. In determining the length of sentence, the factors which the trial judge is entitled to consider are: (1) the intrinsic seriousness of the offence; (2) the degree of revulsion felt by law-abiding citizens of the society for the particular crime; (3) the premeditation with which the criminal plan was executed; (4) the prevalence of the crime within the particular locality where the offence took place, or in the country generally; (5) the sudden increase in the incidence of the particular crime; and (6) mitigating or aggravating circumstances such as extreme youth, good character and the violent manner in which the offence was committed.

APALOO AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC [1975] 1 GLR 156 [1975] SLR (SC) 1 · Supreme Court · 1975 · AZU CRABBE CJ

The determination of the length of sentence within the statutory maximum sentence is a matter “within the discretion of the trial court, and the courts always act upon the principle that the sentence imposed must bear some relation to the gravity of the offence.

BREMPONG II V. THE REPUBLIC [1995] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 1995 · BENIN JA

But in imposing sentence, a trial court is not limited to the value obtained by the accused from the sale, but it may also look at the offender and the gravity of the offence, the subject matter of the charge is of no material significance.

BREMPONG II V. THE REPUBLIC [1995] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 1995 · BENIN JA

Section 60 of Act 653, which is the Interpretation Section of the Act defines a young person to mean a person who is eighteen (18) years or above eighteen years but under Twenty -One (21) years. A young offender is defined in that same section to mean "a person who has been convicted of an offence for which the Court has power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for one month or upwards with the option of a fine"

ABU MOHAMMED vs. THE REPUBLIC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. J3/03/2023 [2026] SLR (SC) 30 · Supreme Court · 2024 · KOOMSON JSC

“Where an Appellant complains about the harshness of a sentence he ought to appreciate that every sentence is supposed to serve a five-fold purpose, namely, to be punitive, calculated to deter others, to reform the offender, to appease the society and to be a safeguard to this country”.

ABU MOHAMMED vs. THE REPUBLIC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. J3/03/2023 [2026] SLR (SC) 30 · Supreme Court · 2024 · KOOMSON JSC

It follows therefore that one of the principal grounds upon which this entire appeal has been anchored, being the fact that a co-accused had had his sentence reduced to 20 years on appeal, even if true, is not a relevant factor to take into account in impugning the term of imprisonment imposed by a court of law which falls within the statutory limits imposed by law. This ground of appeal lacks merit and hereby fails.

CHARLES ANSAH vs. THE REPUBLIC CRIMINAL APPEAL J3/02/2025 [2025] SLR (SC) 10 · Supreme Court · 2025 · DARKO ASARE JSC

A young person become a young offender when he or she is convicted of an offence, for which the Court has been given power by statute to impose a sentence of one month or upwards with the option of a fine. See Section 60 of Act 653. Therefore, where a young person commits an offence for which the option of a fine is not provided, that young person shall not become a young offender.

ABU MOHAMMED vs. THE REPUBLIC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. J3/03/2023 [2026] SLR (SC) 30 · Supreme Court · 2024 · KOOMSON JSC