Rashid s/o Abdallah, Crim. App. 551-D-68, 6/11/68, Biron J.

Rashid s/o Abdallah, Crim. App. 551-D-68, 6/11/68, Biron J.

The appellant was convicted of stealing from the person c/s 269(a) Penal Code and he was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. Evidence was given by the complainant to the effect that as he was holding out a Shs. 10/- not which was being changed into smaller denominations, by an employee in a hotel, the appellant snatched the not out of his hand, demanding the return of his money and the appellant threatened to kill him if he persisted in his demands. The complainant duly reported the mater to the police. In sentencing the appellant snatched the not out of his hand, pocketed it, and walked out of the hotel. He followed him demanding the return of his money and the appellant threatened to kill him if he persisted in his demands. The complainant duly reported the matter to the police. In sentencing the appellant, the magistrate stated: - “You have a shocking recorded. It appears that you have in all the sixteen previous convictions been treated with leniency. You however seem not to appreciate the leniency accorded to you. Hardly eight months have passed since you last left prison on a charge of stealing. Among the sixteen previous convictions eight are similar to the present conviction, and all of them are offences involving moral turpitude ….. I am certain that prison sentence does little to reform you; on the contrary it may have added to your criminality. However to protect the public from men of your nasty and dangerous behaviour have no alternative but to keep you behind iron-bars”.

Held: “With respect, I fully agree with the learned magistrate that the appellant is apparently a manace from whom the public needs to be protected. Even so, the particular facts and circumstances of the offence itself cannot be disregarded, and I thin there is considerable substance in the learned magistrate’s remark that the appellant does not apparently appreciate what he had been doing. It is also pertinent to not that all the relevant previous convictions were for petty theft, attracting very light sentences, in one case as low as imprisonment for seven days and the longest term of imprisonment the appellant ever received was twelve months. In all the circumstances, I agree, with respect, with learned State Attorney that the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive and cannot be sustained. ……. I consider that, taking all the relevant factors into consideration, the justice of the case would be met by the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for one year”.