R. v. Tiruhumwa Crim. Rev. 3-M-71; 19/3/71; Mnzavas Ag. J.
The accused was convicted driving of driving a motor vehicle whilst his efficiency as a driver was impaired by drinks or drugs c/s 49A (1) Traffic Ordinance Cap. 168. He was sentenced to a fine of Shs. 30/- or 7 days imprisonment. When the case went to the High Court on revisions, the Republic argued that the sentence was extremely inadequate and that there were no special reasons entitling the trial magistrate not to disqualify the accused from driving.
Held: (1) “As rightly stated by the Republic, driving a motor vehicle while one’s efficiency is impaired by drink is a serious traffic offence. It carries with it a maximum penalty of a fine of Shs. 2, 000/- or to imprisonment of six months or both such fine and imprisonment. Over and above this prescribed punishment it is mandatory that an order to
Disqualify a person convicted of this offence from holding or obtaining a driving license should be given by the court registering the conviction – unless of course there are special reasons entitling the court not to order disqualification.” (2) “As I have already said the evidence it that the accused has only been driving for 13 years at the most and not 30 years. But even if for argument’s sake 30 years period is to be accepted, this does not necessarily entitled the learned magistrate to impose such a manifestly inadequate sentence in such a serious traffic offence. Nor does the fact that he is a driver at the
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.