Lawyer for Patricia Asiedu popularly known as Agradaa has explained what transpiled on the sentence imposed by a circuit court, citing serious procedural and legal flaws in the trial process.
In a zoom interview on “The Digest” a political show on Kessben TV, the Circuit Court judge erred by imposing a sentence that exceeded what is permitted under the law. The appellant argues that while the law provides for a custodial sentence ranging between 10 and 25 years, the court failed to properly apply the sentencing framework set out in Section 131, leading to an unlawful punishment.
Lawyer Baffour further contends that the trial judge did not give due consideration to sentencing principles and relevant criminal enactments before passing judgment. As a result, the sentence imposed is said to be inconsistent with established legal standards.
The appellant also alleges that the trial court misapplied the judicial mensa (judicial reasoning), resulting in a flawed assessment of the facts of the case. It is argued that the evidence relied upon by the court was contaminated and should not have been admitted.
Additionally, the appeal points to multiple procedural faults that allegedly undermined the fairness of the trial. The appellant maintains that these errors, taken together, affected the outcome of the case and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
A key ground of appeal is that the trial judge failed to adequately consider aggravating and mitigating factors before sentencing. The appellant insists that this omission breached sentencing guidelines and denied the accused a fair determination of punishment.
The appeal also challenges the use of a previous conviction to enhance the sentence, arguing that the prior conviction was improperly relied upon.
