Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

R. v. Athumani Hatibu, Crim. Rev. 96-D-68, 26/8/68, Hamlyn J.



R. v. Athumani Hatibu, Crim. Rev. 96-D-68, 26/8/68, Hamlyn J.

Accused was convicted of theft by public servant and sentenced to two years imprisonment and twenty four strokes of corporal punishment under the Minimum Sentences Act. The Court, relying on a statement of accused, gave his age as 43 years. After the trial was completed, the Prison Medical Officer gave the opinion that accused was 47 years of age but subsequently wrote the court stating that he deferred to the finding of the trial court.

            Held: (1) The Prison Medical Officer must give his independent opinion as to the age of accused. “if the medical officer finds that the convicted man is not fit for corporal punishment, either by reason of some physical defect or by reason of age it is his duty to say so, and it is immaterial that others may have reached an earlier and different conclusion. He is in the position of an expert on which both the court and the prison authorities must finally rely.” (2) Doubt as to the accused ’s age should be resolved in favour of the accused. Corporal punishment set aside. 

Post a Comment

0 Comments