Aboul Iddi Milani v. R., Crim. App. 219-Z-66, 2/3/67, Kimicha Ag. C. J.

 

Aboul Iddi Milani v. R., Crim. App. 219-Z-66, 2/3/67, Kimicha Ag. C. J.

At one trial the accused was convicted on four counts of stealing by a person in public service, c/s 248(4) of the Penal Decree, and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment. These offences were committed between February and June of 1965. At a second and entirely separate trial, the accused was convicted on four other counts of stealing by a public servant, these counts arising from different thefts from those dealt with in the first trial. The second group of offences took place between May and June of 1965. At the second trial, the accused was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment on each count, sentences to run consecutively. Appeal here is from the sentences imposed in the second case only.

Held: (1) All the counts could have been, and should have been, combined and dealt with at one trial. Whether the separate trials were a matter of inadvertence or one of intention on the part of the prosecution, the sentencing of the accused was prejudiced by his being

subject to separate trials. “(T)here is nothing illegal about what has happened; all I say is that the practice has been unfair to the (accused) in that ….. the court was able to impose a sentence which on the facts appears to be unduly severe.” (Citing Henry Julius v. Rex, Tanganyika Crim. App. 377of 1951, 1 T.L.R. 366).

            (2) The sentences on the four counts at the second trial are ordered to run concurrently with those from the first trial, so that the accused will serve a total of 9 months’ imprisonment.