The
appellants were…, sentenced each to nine (9) years imprisonment of which three
(3) years imprisonment was suspended for five (5) years on the usual conditions
of good future behavior.
They
have appealed against the sentence.
After
hearing both counsel we allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the
sentence imposed by the learned Regional Magistrate and substituting it with one
of two (2) years imprisonment. We indicated then that our reasons will follow.
These are they.
The
appellants and their accomplice were all employed by the complainant and
resided at their place of employment. The charge they were convicted of was
that they jointly, and acting in common purpose, stole six hundred car tubes
from their employer between October 2007 and December 2007. The appellants sold the stolen tubes and not
surprisingly none of the stolen property was recovered. The stolen tubes were valued at ZS$12
billion, a considerable amount at the time of the theft. It is apparent from
the record of proceedings that the learned Regional Magistrate failed to obtain
detailed and meaningful mitigation from the appellants who were, at the time,
unrepresented.
This
was a mis-direction and the State conceded that fact….,. On account of the said
misdirection, we are at large as far as sentence is concerned.
The
mitigatory factors are that the appellants pleaded guilty to the charge and
showed some measure of contrition. They were young offenders. They were first
offenders; as a result of the conviction and sentence they will most likely
lose their employment. Against this, theft from an employer is viewed as a
serious offence involving breach of trust. The stolen property was sold by the
appellants. None of the stolen property was recovered. The value of the stolen
property, as alluded to above, was considerable. The sentence of nine (9) years
with three (3) years suspended is manifestly excessive in the circumstances. It
is for the above reasons that we reduced the sentence to two (2) years. We also
directed that the period that the appellants served prior to their admission to
bail be taken into account.
