Ngidi s/o Paulo v. R., Crim. App. 90-D-69, 12/3/69, Biron J.

Ngidi s/o Paulo v. R., Crim. App. 90-D-69, 12/3/69, Biron J.

                        The appellant was convicted together with his father, both on their own pleas of robbery c/s 286, Penal Code, and whilst his father was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, and to the statutory twenty four strokes corporal punishment, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years, and on the magistrate finding him to be a juvenile, he escaped had traveled together with the complainant in a truck from their village to town, where the complainant was going to sell some coffee, one and a half debes full. After they had all left the truck, the two accused set upon the complainant, felled him to the ground and robbed him for his coffee and also of Shs. 150/-. In sentencing the two men the magistrate stated: - “This is an aggravated form of robbery on the highway, the complainant having been severely injured. It is quite apparent that the 1^st accused – the father of the 2^nd accused – was the domineering in the crime, and the 2^nd accused must have unfortunately participated at the 1^st accused’s instigations. Some leniency is therefore called for as far as the 2^nd accused is concerned. Heavy and deterrent sentence is called for as far as the 1^st accused is concerned.

            Held: “The learned magistrate having found, and, I may add with respect, very properly, that he appellant was instigated to participate in the offence by his father, whom the magistrate to participate in the offence by his father, whom the magistrate describes as domineering, it is difficult to comprehend why the magistrate saw fit to impose a sentence of imprisonment for two years on the appellant, who he himself found to e a juvenile. As the learned magistrate will note, a juvenile is expressly exempted from the provisions of the Minimum Sentences Act. He therefore had an unfettered discretion in respect of sentence. In all the circumstances, the sentence imposed cannot be regarded as other than manifestly excessive, and is accordingly reduced to such term as will result in the immediate discharge of the appellant.”  

Material factors – Child stealing – Great desire of accused to have children despite abortions.

See case no. 152.