Mussa s/o Hassan v. R., Crim. App. 402-M-67; 19/7/67; Cross, J.

Mussa s/o Hassan v. R., Crim. App. 402-M-67; 19/7/67; Cross, J.

Accused was convicted of indecent assault and burglary, both offences being part of one transaction. The trial magistrate gave consecutive sentence, citing R. v. Kasongo s/o Luhogwa T.L.R. 47, which judgment contained the following statement: “Offences committed in the same transaction should carry concurrent sentences and before any departure is made from this principle the trial magistrate must be satisfied that there are very exceptional circumstances.” The court then posited, as an example of exceptional circumstances, a situation where a person breaks and enters into a house and commits the felony of rape therein.

            Held: There were no exceptional circumstances here to justify consecutive sentences here. Accused was convicted of indecent assault, a far lesser crime than that of rape. Also, he was a first offender.