Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

R. v. Tangu Crim. Rev. 173-D-71; 26/10/71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

 


R. v. Tangu Crim. Rev. 173-D-71; 26/10/71; Mwakasendo Ag. J.

In sentencing the accused- a juvenile – the trial magistrate ordered that he be given 12 strokes of he cane in public as corporal punishment. The Magistrate purported to act under section 6 of Cap. 17. No reason was advanced as to why corporal punishment should be inflicted in public.

            Held: “On perusal of the record I have been unable to find any explanation or reason for the Magistrate’s decision to have the infliction or corporal punishment in public. Section6 of Cap. 17 quoted by him do not authorize him to order the canning of the juvenile to take palace in public. Even section 8(5) of the same Ordinance which might, in a special case, ‘where the court considers it desirable’, permit a Magistrate to make an order for corporal punishment to be carried out in public, does not in the present case appear to be applicable. Sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Corporal Punishment Ordinance, Cap. 17 provides: “No sentence of corporal punishment shall be inflicted publicly: provided that where the Court considers it desirable, this provision shall not apply to the punishment of juveniles.” From a proper construction of this provision, it would seem to me that no order for the infliction of corporal punishment in public can be maintainable unless the court in clear terms, gives, reason why it thinks it desirable that corporal punishment should be carried out in public. This was not done in this case ad therefore the order directing that the punishment be carried out in public was irregular and shall accordingly be revised.”

Post a Comment

0 Comments