Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

R. v. Angasisye s/o Mwaikuga, Crim. Rev. 12-D-68, 6/4/68, Duff J.



R. v. Angasisye s/o Mwaikuga, Crim. Rev. 12-D-68, 6/4/68, Duff J.

The day after the Water Development Department had hired several workers, accused offered Shs. 10/- to the Department agent charged with hiring, to obtain similar work. The High Court’s summary of the situation is that “it was clear by then that [the agent] was in no position to assist the accused, it also being apparent that [the agent] was not a man to succumb to temptation.” Being convicted on his own plea of guilty to a charge under section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, accused did not request leniency, and was therefore sentenced to 2 years and 24 strokes under the Minimum Sentences Act. Forfeiture of Shs. 10/- to the Government was also ordered.

            Held: (1)The High Court may, on revision, consider the question of “special circumstances” which might warrant leniency under section 5(2) of the Minimum Sentences Act, despite the fact that the issue was not considered at all by the lower court. To do otherwise, in this case, would be unfair to accused, in view of the punishments already endured. (2) Accused pleaded guilty in his first appearance in court and “this fact alone entitled him to some leniency.” (3) Accused ’s conduct was “pathetic and, if anything, silly. It would not be stretching matters too far to say that the accused was desperate to obtain employment and hence his attempt at corruption. These facts amply constitute special circumstances in my view and to think otherwise would be to made a mockery of Cap. 526 and its implications.” (4) The forfeiture order was illegal under section 3(3)(b) of Cap. 400. Sentence reduced to result in immediate release; Shs. 10/- ordered refunded to accused.

  

Post a Comment

0 Comments