Convict Who Appealed Jail Sentence Slapped With Additional 5 Years In Jail | Crime

A convict, who had his 5 years' time period of imprisonment elevated by the Court of Appeal to an extra 5 years after he had completed serving the sentence, has gone to the Supreme Court for redress.
Mustapha Iddrisu, has filed an attraction on the Court of Appeal in opposition to the judgment of the High Court through which he was sentenced 5 years for inflicting hurt.

The attraction was decided nonetheless by the Court of Appeal, two days after Iddrisu had completed serving his sentence and had been launched from jail.

A 3-member panel of the Court of Appeal, in its judgment, enhanced Iddrisu's sentence by an extra 5 years, making it 10 years.

Per legislation, an attraction's courtroom when figuring out an attraction, can both scale back or improve a sentence, or purchase a convict if it finds her or him not responsible.

Supervisory jurisdiction

Iddrisu has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court with a certiorari software, asking the apex courtroom to quash the choice of the Court of Appeal on the premise that it's a nullity and a miscarriage of justice.

The software is earlier than a five-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Justice Kwasi Anin Yeboah, with Justices Gabriel Pwamang, Nene Amegatcher, Gertrude Torkornoo and Prof. Henreitta Mensa Bonsu as members.

Grounds

Iddrisu is of the competition that his attraction was moot and, subsequently, the Court of Appeal was fallacious in legislation to have enhanced his sentence.

“The Court of Appeal wrongly exercised jurisdiction when it delivered judgment on an appeal that had become moot as there was no appeal pending at the time the court delivered the judgment, because the applicant had fully executed the sentence imposed on him by the High Court, ” he argued.

Again, Iddrisu is making a case that on the time the Court of Appeal made its choice, there was no sentence for the courtroom to both scale back or improve since he had absolutely served the 5 years sentence imposed on him by the High Court.

“This has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice against the applicant,” the certiorari software stated.

listening to

The case was first heard on the Supreme Court on October 25, this 12 months, throughout which the courtroom granted an software by the Attorney-General (AG) for extension of time to reply to Iddrisu's software.

Lawyer for Iddrisu, Obeng Darko, advised the courtroom that his shopper was now again in jail.

Justice Amegatcher then requested counsel whether or not his shopper would have taken benefit of the Court of Appeal's choice if it had gone in his favour, to which counsel answered that there was no benefit because the award had absolutely been served.

The panel, nonetheless, reminded counsel that there was a bonus because the conviction might have been quashed and erased from his shopper's file.

The Chief Justice additional advised counsel that the attraction was actively pending and, subsequently, the Court of Appeal had an obligation to find out it.

However, the Chief Justice stated the case was a novel case and, subsequently, the 2 events ought to file their authorized arguments, together with circumstances from different jurisdictions that had handled such points.

Hearing continues on December 15.