Tarimo v. R. Crim. App. 41-A-71; 7/5/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

Tarimo v. R. Crim. App. 41-A-71; 7/5/71; Kwikima Ag. J.

The appellant was convicted for strokebreaking and stealing bear. He was sentenced to two years and 24 strokes under the Minimum Sentences Act. He appealed conviction and sentence.

            Held: (1) “There was ample evidence for the conviction of the appellant who was found outside the broken shop consuming the stolen beer.” (2) “The sentence imposed on him was excessive, however. The beer stolen was valued at Shs. 15/-only. The offence itself was silly that had it not fallen under the Minimum Sentences a cat, a conditional discharge would have been most appropriate. The appellant himself is a very Youngman of 22. He is recorded to have told the court that he has a mother and a father to support. All this would clearly constitute special circumstances in terms of s. 5(2) of the Minimum Sentences act ………. It is quite clear that the trial court seriously misdirected itself by refusing to find that there were special circumstances relating to the appellant simply because the offence itself was prevalent.” (3) The sentence imposed on the appellant is in the circumstances excessive. Sentence set aside. Appellant ordered to be discharged absolutely.