Aisha Huang: AG intends to appeal 4 and half year sentence
In a statement Tuesday, Mr. Dame said he intends to file an appeal at the Court of Appeal to apply the new sentencing regime imposed by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995) to the accused person.
.jpg)
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Dame says he would test the soundness of the High Court's decision that sentenced infamous Chinese illegal miner En Huang to a four-and-a-half-year jail term under Act 900.
In a statement Tuesday, Mr. Dame said he intends to file an appeal at the Court of Appeal to apply the new sentencing regime imposed by the Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995) to the accused person.
"The Attorney-General expresses appreciation for the relatively swift manner in which justice has been dispensed in this case.
"Whilst applauding the efficiency of the justice delivery system witnessed in the trial of Aisha Huang, the Attorney General will, however, test the soundness of the decision of the trial court to punish the accused person under Act 900, by filing an appeal at the Court of Appeal, against the sentence to ensure that the new sentencing regime imposed by Act 995 is applied to the accused person," the statement said.
Popularly referred to as Aisha Huang, and known for her notoriety for engaging in illegal mining, Ms.Huang was sentenced yesterday by the Court presided over by Justice Lydia Osei-Marfo for offences she committed between 2015 and 2017 before she was first deported in 2018.
Delivering her judgment, Justice Lydia Osie-Marfo said even though she had wished to sentence Ms. Huang to more years, she was limited in her powers to do so as at the time the accused was charged, the current Minerals and Mining (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act 995), which imposes a punishment of up to 25 years to prison had not yet been passed. And so she was forced to do so under Act 900, which imposes a maximum of five years’ jail term for engaging in illegal mining.
It was the view of the trial judge that Article 19 (6) of the Constitution prohibits a penalty from being imposed for a criminal offence that is severer in degree or description than the maximum penalty that could have been imposed for that offense at the time that it was committed.
