IN THE HIGH COURT OF
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
Confirmation Case number 431 of 2002
REPUBLIC
Versus
MISSI MANYOZO
From
the First
CORAM: DF MWAUNGULU (JUDGE)
Chimwaza, Deputy Chief State
Advocate, for the State
Defendant, present,
unrepresented
Kamanga, court interpreter
Mwaungulu, J
JUDGEMENT
The judge who reviewed this matter set it down to
consider the sentence the lower court imposed on the defendant. The
The facts are not complex and, to the extent they
resolve matters the judge raises, are as follows. The defendant stole a cell
phone worth K7, 000 from the person of the complainant. He pleaded guilty in
the lower court. The lower court approached the matter from the perspective
that theft is a very serious offence. Of the crimes in our Penal Code, the law
indicating offences involving high moral turpitude, simple theft is not even in
the top or middle bracket of serious crimes under our criminal law. On the
contrary, among the felonies, a classification still persisting in our criminal
law, theft is the lowest of offences, attracting a maximum sentence, as the
lower court observed, of five years imprisonment. The sentence may however be
higher where the offence occurred in aggravating circumstances. Although, the
defendant stole from the person of the complainant, the prosecution did not
charge the defendant of the aggravated offence. Circumstances justifying an
aggravated offence should influence the sentence of the simple offence
provided, of course, the sentencing court minds the risk of sentencing the
defendant for which the prosecutor has not charged the defendant. Even with
that the sentence passed here is manifestly excessive.
The lower court also approached the matter from that
the defendant had a previous conviction. The lower court thought the defendant
was not entitled to leniency at all. The lower court should not have approached
the matter that way. First, the offence was quite different from the one the
lower court convicted the defendant for this time around. Generally, and the
case of R v Chang’ono (1964-66) ALR
(Mal) 415, suggests it, it is previous convictions the similar offence charged
that the court should consider. This Court in Republic V Kamuna, Conf.Cas. No. 669 of 2002, unreported, followed R v Chang’ono. Moreover, the defendant
had only one previous conviction. In Republic
v Zwangeti Conf. Cas. No. 179 of 2002, unreported, this Court said:
“Of
course, the defendant had a relevant previous conviction. It was only one. The
defendant, in my judgment, had not lost his whole right to leniency.”
Thirdly, previous convictions are not a reason
for passing a sentence higher than one justified by the nature and
circumstances of the offence, the circumstances of the offender and the victim
and the public interest. There are decisions of this Court: see Bwanali v R (1964-66)3 ALR (Mal) 329.
There is also a decision of the Supreme Court: Maikolo v R (1964-66) ALR (Mal) 584. The sentencing court must
arrive at the right sentence deserved by the crime. After that, previous
convictions are reasons for maintaining the right sentence (R v White (1923-61) 1 ALR (Mal) 401; and
Bwanali v R. Moreover the lower court
just accepted the prosecutor’s assertion that the offence was unrelated to the
one the defendant stood charged for. The lower court should have called for its
record to ascertain what the offence was and whether it was not similar to the
offence the defendant answered in the lower court. There is another reason why
the lower court should have called the record: the court had to be sure the
offence and therefore the conviction was previous. The offence the defendant
answered in the lower court this time around could have been committed earlier
or at the same time as the present offence only that the latter was prosecuted
later. More importantly, if the offences were committed around the same time
and could have been charged together, the sentences could have run
concurrently. A lower court, must, therefore, in the circumstances obtaining
here call for the record from the court that first convicted the defendant.
The
offence, theft of property worth K7, 000, even factoring in the victim’s
station in life, is manifestly excessive. Moreover, the defendant is young,
pleaded guilty to the offence and, given the difficulties just considered, is
offending for the first time. It is wholly inappropriate for sentencing courts
to pass long and heavy sentences for young offenders committing otherwise not
serious offences. For first and youthful offenders, a short and a quick prison
sentence, if deserved, may just be as effective. Sentencing courts must take
pleas of guilty seriously. Apart from saving courts resources, time and space,
such pleas redirect the court’s effort to more deserving cases. Moreover, such
pleas are the surest proof that avoids miscarriages of justice possible through
the trial process. These matters were stressed in Kamuna V Republic. Lower courts should, when dealing with first
offenders follow the suggestions this Court made in Bobat v Republic Criminal Appeal case number 29 of 1994,
unreported. This is a sure way to arrive at the right sentence. In my judgment
a sentence lower than six months was appropriate. The lower court should have
ordered community service or suspended the sentence. I pass a sentence as
results in the defendant’s immediate release.
Made
in open court this 24th Day of July 2003.
D F Mwaungulu
JUDGE