The
two accused persons were charged, and convicted, by the same magistrate, in
separate trials, and on different charges.
In
State v W. Hakurerwi, the accused was an eighteen year old female first
offender. In August 2008, she stole $900 (re-valued) from her employer's
bedroom. The money was all recovered.
She
was convicted on her own plea of guilty, and was sentenced to six months
imprisonment which was wholly suspended on condition that she performed two
hundred and ten hours of community service at a rate of eight hours per day.
In
State v P. Sharara, the accused was a thirty-two year old male adult employed
as a security guard by the complainant. On a date in September 2008, he stole a
pocket of potatoes which had fallen off a moving tractor. The potatoes were
valued at $3000. He readily pleaded guilty, and was convicted. He was a first
offender.
He
was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, of which six months were suspended
for five years on conditions of good behaviour, and the remaining six months
were suspended on condition that he completed two hundred and ten hours of
community service at a rate of eight hours per day.
As
is the norm in each case, the magistrate indicated that the supervisor may, on
good cause, grant leave of absence which shall not count as part of the service
to be performed. The community service, in each case had to be completed within
six weeks.
The
Regional Magistrate, before whom the proceedings were placed for scrutiny,
queried the short period within which the community service had to be completed,
as it tallied with a mathematical calculation of the time it would take the
accused to complete two hundred and ten hours at eight hours per day, without
any leave of absence.
He,
thus, asked the trial magistrate whether he should not have given more time
than the actual period mathematically required in order to accommodate the
unforeseen eventualities where the probationer may need to get leave of absence
from the supervisor.
The
trial magistrate responded by defending his manner of calculating the period.
He contended that to grant more time within which the probationer must complete
community service would tend to encourage requests for time off.
The trial magistrate's response showed a clear
misunderstanding of the query raised, and the provisions of the guidelines on
this aspect.
