She
was convicted and sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment.
The
appellant's contention is that the trial magistrate's sentence on her was
unduly harsh in the circumstances, and referred us to case authorities which
supported the need to first consider community service for sentences less than
twenty-four months imprisonment –see S v Majaya HB15-03 and HB38-03.
On
the other ...
She
was convicted and sentenced to fifteen months imprisonment.
The
appellant's contention is that the trial magistrate's sentence on her was
unduly harsh in the circumstances, and referred us to case authorities which
supported the need to first consider community service for sentences less than
twenty-four months imprisonment –see S v Majaya HB15-03 and HB38-03.
On
the other hand, it is the respondent's view that the sentence imposed is
appropriate as stipulated by section 5(b) of the Exchange Control Act [Chapter
22:05] which reads -
“(5)
Where an individual is convicted of an offence in terms of -
(a)
Subsection (1), which involves a failure -
(i)
To furnish to any person any information; or
(ii)
To produce any books, accounts, or documents, or any other records; or
(b)
Subsection (1), and he has previously been convicted of an offence, whether
similar in nature or not, in terms of subsection (1);
The court shall, in addition to any fine which it
might be required by subsection(4) to impose, or which it otherwise deems fit,
impose a sentence of imprisonment for such period as it deems fit.” (my
emphasis).
It
is the interpretation of this section that the respondent is of the view that
the court a quo was correct in imposing a term of imprisonment.
My
understanding of this section is that the legislature empowered the court to
impose a prison term in addition to a fine for a repeat offender – not that a
custodial sentence should be imposed without first imposing a fine.
It is for that reason that I am of the opinion
that the court a quo misdirected itself in this matter. This misdirection
therefore attracts this court's attention to interfere with the sentence passed
by the trial court...,.
