Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Tuwati s/o Mzee v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 40-A-67, 27/11/67, Seaton J.



Tuwati s/o Mzee v. R., (PC) Crim. App. 40-A-67, 27/11/67, Seaton J.

Accused was convicted of breaking and stealing [P.C. ss. 296, 265. The trial court sentenced accused to two years imprisonment and 24 strokes under the Minimum Sentences Act “because it is not accused ’s first offence”, but there was nothing in the record concerning these convictions.

The value of the goods stolen was Shs. 64/- and accused was sixteen years of age.

            Held: (1) The details of the previous convictions should have been given in evidence or otherwise proved after conviction and before sentence. (2) In view of the value of the property stolen, the youth of the accused and the lack of proof that he was anything but a first offender, the sentence was excessive. Sentence reduced to twelve months imprisonment. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments