The
accused was charged with contravening section 114 of the Criminal Law (Codification
and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], [stock theft].
The
accused pleaded not guilty but was however convicted of the said offence and
sentenced as follows:
“9
years imprisonment. In addition, the accused is sentenced to a further 4
years imprisonment. 13 years effective.”
There
is no State outline contained in the record and the trial magistrate has now
left service after my query of the 28th November 2012 regarding the
propriety of the sentence. I queried the propriety of a further imposition
of a sentence of 4 years. There is no explanation to this query as the
magistrate has left service.
In as
much as the sentence of 9 years imprisonment is mandatory, I have a problem
with an additional sentence of 4 years in prison imposed without any
explanation. To me, it appears to have been erroneously passed on the accused.
The
courts should always work within the four corners of the statute, as they
themselves are a creature of such. The empowerment and jurisdiction
accorded the courts by the Legislature should be judicially exercised. The
exercise should not result in the passing of sentences which may lead a
reasonable man of the judicial officer's status into concluding that the
sentence was passed without proper and deligent application. In the
absence of an explanation by the learned trial magistrate; this apparent
misdirection cannot be allowed to stand.
Accordingly,
the following order is made:
Order
(1) The
conviction is confirmed.
(2)
The sentence is set aside and substituted by the sentence of 9 years
imprisonment.
