The
appellant was.., sentenced to 10 years imprisonment…,.
The
respondent…, insisted that the sentence which the court a
quo
imposed on the appellant induced a sense of shock….,.
Counsel
for the appellant did not make any submissions in respect of the
sentence which the court must impose upon him. He, in fact, did not
appeal against sentence. He left ...
The
appellant was.., sentenced to 10 years imprisonment…,.
The
respondent…, insisted that the sentence which the court a
quo
imposed on the appellant induced a sense of shock….,.
Counsel
for the appellant did not make any submissions in respect of the
sentence which the court must impose upon him. He, in fact, did not
appeal against sentence. He left that matter to the court to
determine.
The
respondent, on the other hand, remained of the view that the
appellant's aggravatory matters outweighed what favoured him by a
very wide margin. It stated, correctly so, that the appellant
breached the trust which his employers bestowed upon him. It stated,
further, that he committed the offence out of greed and not need as
he was gainfully employed. It insisted that a sentence of 4 years
imprisonment with one year being suspended for deterrent reasons
would meet the justice of the present case.
The
offence which the appellant committed attracts the penalty of a fine
of up to or not exceeding level fourteen or imprisonment for a period
which does not exceed twenty years or both. It follows from the
foregoing that the legislature did not want persons who act in a
corrupt manner to be treated with kid gloves. The appellant acted
corruptly when he stole his employer's valuable item and installed
it at Mr Mutema's house for a consideration. The respondent spelt
out in a very lucid way all the factors which militate against the
appellant. The court remains alive to those matters in its effort to
assess the sentence which is commensurate with the crime which he
committed. The appellant is, on the other hand, a middle–aged first
offender. He maintained an unblemished record for some 42 years
running. He is a family man who lost his employment as a result of
this offence.
The
court remains of the view that a short but sharp term of imprisonment
is warranted in the circumstances of this case. It, however, does not
agree with the respondent's proposal which is to the effect that
the appellant be sentenced to four years imprisonment with a three
year term being effective. The appellant, in the court's view,
should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which is less than the
effective three years which the State suggested. A portion of that
sentence will be suspended for a period of time and for deterrent
reasons….,.
1.
The conviction of the appellant, in respect of the main charge, be
and is hereby quashed and the sentence of 10 years imprisonment set
aside.
2….,.
3.
The appellant is sentenced to 24 months imprisonment; 6 months of
which are suspended for 5 years on condition he does not, within that
period, commit any offence involving dishonesty for which he is
sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine.
Effective
sentence: 18 months imprisonment.
