Julia v. R. Crim. App. 104-M-71; 23/3/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

Julia v. R. Crim. App. 104-M-71; 23/3/71; El-Kindy Ag. J.

The appellant was convicted of causing grievous harm c/s 225 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. It was established that the appellant, a mother of 4 children, attacked her co-wife with a slasher because of what was characterized as a most trivial quarrel and thereby causing her co-wife to suffer a fracture of the arm. Appellant was a first offender and appealed for leniency since she had pleaded guilty tot eh charge.

Held: (1) [The] fact that the appellant was a co – wife with the complainant was something which ought to have been taken into consideration in assessing the sentence. These women are supposed to live together, and to send one of them in prison will not help to bring about an amicable settle-ment. This is bound to aggravate matters. I consider that this was a sort of case whose reconciliation and settlement would have served a better purpose, as this would have healed the original assault, while imprisonment is bound to further strain their relationship. A fine and or compensation would have served the purpose.” (2) “In passing the sentence, the learned magistrate did not pay much attention to the fact that the appellant was a mother of 4 children. It may well be that offences of violence are on increase in the area, as the trial magistrate said, but this by itself is not sufficient to blind him from seeing the other factors which ought to have been considered. In my view the sentence imposed is so excessive that this court would be doing injustice if it does not interfere with it, in the circumstances of this case. I, therefore, invoke my powers of revision conferred upon me. The appellant has been in prison since 16^th of January, 1971, and this is more that enough for her. The sentence is reduced so that it results in the immediate release of the appellant.”