Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Kamili Sambulu v. R. Crim. App. 39-D-67; 17/5/67; Hamlyn, J.



Kamili Sambulu v. R. Crim. App. 39-D-67; 17/5/67; Hamlyn, J.

Accused was convicted of wrongful confinement and sentenced to imprisonment for one year. He had a dispute with another, the result of which was that accused locked the other man in a storage room for twenty four hours without food or water. The only issue of substance on appeal was the length of sentence. Accused had no prior convictions of any sort.

Held: (1) The offence here involved is a misdemeanor, Accused ’s behavior does not merit the severe punishment meted our to him. Sentence  was reduced to three months. (2) The person damaged by accused ’s wrongful behavior has it open to him to bring a civil action for false imprisonment, there by  punishing accused according to amount of harm inflicted by his actions.

This paragraph is to supplement the digest of case number 81 (Masenu s/o Butili v. R., Crim. App. 379-M-66; 7/3/67; Platt, J.) digested in Volume 1, Number 2. The digest of that case stated, “Accused did not dispute that a garage was within the specified types of buildings. “(See P. C. s. 296 (1). ) The digest should have read as follows;

            The court stated, obiter; Although accused did not raise the issue, it would seem that a garage is not within the building specified in Penal Code Section 296 (1) This case affords another example of the necessity for amending that section.

Post a Comment

0 Comments