Gabriel Kwao Boso v. The Republic No. J3/2/2007
Material Facts:
The appellant was found to have caused the death of one Debora. After her death, he dismembered her body into pieces and disposed of it in a septic tank. At the trial court, he was convicted for murder. On appeal, the Court of Appeal substituted his murder for manslaughter, and he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds that the sentence was excessive (among other grounds).
Relevant Ratio on Sentencing:
In imposing a sentence, Article 14 (6) of the 1992 Constitution provides that the period he has spent in lawful custody before the completion of the trial should be taken into account. The article reads:
Where a person is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence, any period he has spent in lawful custody in respect of that offence before the completion of his trial shall be taken into account in imposing the term of imprisonment.
For their lordships, the essential question is how one may arrive at the conclusion that the period an accused was in custody before the conclusion of the trial has been taken into account in imposing the term of imprisonment. Their lordships will 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. However,
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.
In the present case, the appellant spent 1 (one year) 3 (three) months in lawful custody before the conclusion of the trial. There is nothing to show that the courts took this period into consideration, and it is concluded that they did not. Their lordships take into consideration this period. However, they also take into account the gruesome manner in which the appellant disposed of the dead body and hereby impose a sentence of 21 years.
Principles in Case: