`IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI

 

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

 

Confirmation Case Number 430 of 2003

 

 

THE REPUBLIC

 

Versus

 

WYSON KHOVIWA PHIRI

 

 

In the First Grade Magistrate court sitting at Soche Criminal case number 205 of 2003

 

CORAM:  DF MWAUNGULU (JUDGE)

Chimwaza, Deputy Chief State advocate, for the state

        Defendant, present, unrepresented

        Kamanga, Official Interpreter

 

Mwaungulu, J

 

JUDGMENT

 

The judge who reviewed this matter set it down to consider the sentence the lower court imposed for burglary. The court below convicted the defendant, Wyson Khoviwa Phiri, of burglary and theft. Burglary and theft are offences under sections 309 and 278, respectively, of the Penal Code.  The lower court sentenced the defendant to three years and one-and-half years’ imprisonment, respectively, for the burglary and theft. The judge thought the lower court’s sentence for burglary was manifestly excessive. 

 

On the night of 11th February 2003 the complainant, Mr. Kathe, who, when leaving for a while, secured the house, came back to find the house broken. The intruders stole property from the house. The lower court convicted the defendant after full trial. The defendant is 22 years old. He is a first offender. The lower court’s reasoning on the sentence is meager and only referred to the seriousness of the offence. 

 

The sentencing approach is the same in burglary as for other offences. The sentencing court must regard the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender and the victim and the public interest

 

Sentences courts pass, considering the public interest to prevent crime and the objective of sentencing policy, relate to actions and mental component comprising the crime. Consequently, circumstances escalating or diminishing the extent, intensity or complexion of the actus reus or mens rea of an offence go to influence sentence. It is possible to isolate and generalize circumstances affecting the extent, intensity and complexion of the mental element of a crime: planning, sophistication, collaboration with others, drunkenness, provocation, recklessness, preparedness and the list is not exhaustive.  Circumstances affecting the extent, intensity and complexion of the prohibited act depend on the crime. A sentencing court, because sentencing is discretionary, must, from evidence during trial or received in mitigation, balance circumstances affecting the actus reus or mens rea of the offence.

 

        Besides circumstances around the offence, the sentencing court should regard the defendant’s circumstances generally, before, during the crime, in the course of investigation, and during trial. The just sentence not only fits the crime, it fits the offender. A sentence should mirror the defendant’s antecedents, age and, where many are involved, the degree of participation in the crime. The defendant’s actions in the course of crime showing remorse, helpfulness, disregard or highhandedness go to sentence. Equally a sentencing court must recognize cooperation during investigation or trial.

 

        While the criminal law is publicly enforced, the victim of and the effect of the crime on the direct or indirect victim of the crime are pertinent considerations. The actual circumstances for victims will depend, I suppose, on the nature of the crime. For example for offences against the person in sexual offences, the victim’s age is important. An illustration of circumstances on indirect victims is the effect of theft by a servant on the morale of other employees, apart from the employer.

 

        Finally, the criminal law is publicly enforced primarily to prevent crime and protect society by ensuring public order. The objectives of punishment range from retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation to isolation. In practice, these considerations inform sentencing courts although helping less in determining the sentence in a particular case.

 

Applying these principles to burglary or housebreaking, burglary or housebreaking involves trespass to a dwelling house. Circumstances showing intensity, extent or complexion of the trespass are where the breaking and entry are forceful and accompanied by serious damage to premises or violence to occupants, fraudulent or by trickery. The court may enhance the sentence where more than one person was involved in the crime and whether the defendant committed more than one offence in the same transaction or generally where other similar offences were committed in quick succession. Moreover the court may regard the seriousness of the crime the defendant intended to commit when breaking and entering the dwelling house. The court may regard, where, which is rare, the felony intended is not committed or, where committed, not charged, the nature and extent of the crime committed. A sentencing court may affect the sentence where victims were actually disturbed and, therefore, put in much fear, anxiety, humiliation or despondency. Equally, a sentencing court will seriously regard that the victims were elderly or vulnerable.

 

The six years starting point set in Chizumila v Republic Conf. Cas. No. 316 of 1994, unreported presupposes the crime which a reasonable tribunal would regard as the threshold burglary or housebreaking without considering the circumstances of the offender and the victim and the public interest. The approach is that all these considerations would affect the threshold case. Consequently, depending on intensity of these considerations, the sentencing court could scale up or down the threshold sentence. At the least, for a simple burglary, involving the minimum of trespass, irrespective of the plea where victims are not vulnerable, all being equal, the lowest the sentence can get is three years imprisonment. Housebreaking and burglary will seldom, if ever, be punished by a non-custodial sentence or an order for community service.

 

In this matter the trespass is not described. This is, therefore, an ordinary burglary deserving a sentence of three years imprisonment. The defendant is offending for the first time. He is young. The sentence of three years imprisonment is confirmed.

 

Made in open court this 24th Day of July 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

D F Mwaungulu

JUDGE