The
accused was sentenced to pay a fine of US$300=, or, in default of
payment, to undergo 8 months imprisonment. In addition, 8 months the
whole of which was suspended on conditions was imposed….,.
I
am worried with the first part of the accused's sentence.
The
accused was, inter
alia,
sentenced to pay a fine of US$300=, or, in default of payment, to
undergo 8 months imprisonment. Therein lies the problem.
I
am worried by the apparent disproportion between the fine imposed and
the alternative period of imprisonment which the accused must be
subjected to undergo in the event of him failing to raise the imposed
fine.
There
is no relationship between the fine imposed and the alternative 8
months imprisonment. The 8 months appear to be clear guess work and
that is not how the alternative period of incarceration should be
computed.
The
best approach to deal with the computation of the alternative period
of incarceration is to seek guidance from the convicted person as to
how long it is likely to take him to raise the fine imposed. This
involves, among other issues, canvassing such issues like the source
of income, if not formally employed, or the monthly earnings if the
convicted person is employed. It is only when such information has
been sufficiently gathered that the court is then able to use its
wide discretion in imposing the alternative period of imprisonment.
It cannot be any number of months granted in the air as is apparent
in this case.
For
these reasons, I withhold my certificate in this matter as I am
convinced the approach adopted does not accord with real and
substantial justice.
The
first part of the sentence is set aside and substituted by the
following one;
“US$300=,
or, in default of payment, 2 months imprisonment.”
