R. v. Daniel Paulo: Crim. Rev. 105-D-71; 9/10/71; Ag. J.

 

R. v. Daniel Paulo: Crim. Rev. 105-D-71; 9/10/71; Ag. J.

            The accused was convicted on his own plea of guilty on two counts Ag. J.

            The accused was convicted on his own plea of guilty on two counts of (a) Corrupt transaction with agent c/s3(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1971 and (b) Conveying property suspected of  being or unlawfully obtained c/s 312 of the Penal Code.

On the first count he was sentences to 10 strokes of corporal punishment and on the second count he was conditionally discharged for a period of 12 months under the provisions of section 38 (1) of the Penal Code. the accused had told the trial magistrate  that he had two children who were sick at home and that he had no relatives in Dar es Salaam.

            Held: (1) “I fail to understand how the fact that the accused has children or that he has no relatives here could be considered a special circumstance which relate to the accused and the commission of the offence. In my opinion the accused has failed to advance any special circumstances so as to bring his case within the provisions of section 5  (2) of the Minimum Sentences Act ………. I am precluded from imposing a sentence less than the minimum sentence under the Act.” (2) “[I]t is surprising how the courts still continue invoking the provisions of section 38(1) of the Penal Code for the benefit of people charges with stealing the property of the Harbour Authority. So long as this is invariably what the accused persons expect to get from the Courts, they will be encouraged to continue stealing.” (3) Sentence of 2 years imprisonment and 24 strokes were imposed on the first count and one year imprisonment on the second count, to run concurrently.