The accused was sentenced to five
years imprisonment in respect of each count. Of the total sentence, three years
was suspended on condition of good behavior. In the review statement, it is
submitted that the effective sentence be reduced to one or two years
imprisonment.The learned Regional
Magistrate took into account in the accused's favour ...
The accused was sentenced to five
years imprisonment in respect of each count. Of the total sentence, three years
was suspended on condition of good behavior. In the review statement, it is
submitted that the effective sentence be reduced to one or two years
imprisonment.
The learned Regional
Magistrate took into account in the accused's favour that he is a first
offender who pleaded guilty, showing some measure of contrition. He also took
into account that all the stolen copper was recovered and, further, that the
accused shoulders family responsibilities. He, however, rightly observed that theft
of copper wire from the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply
Authority is prevalent in the country.
In Count One, the
accused's moral blameworthiness was properly held….,, to be of a high degree.
The sentence of five years imprisonment cannot be faulted.
In Count Two, the
accused was convicted of theft by finding, so to speak. His moral
blameworthiness was far less than the one in Count One. The value of the stolen
copper wire is less than in Count One. There was no pre-planning and execution
by the accused. If anything, the conduct revealed in the facts is of mere
temptation after finding copper wire in the bush. The Regional Magistrate
misdirected himself when he did not distinguish the sentence in Count Two from
the one in Count One. As far as Count Two is concerned, I am at large on the
question of the sentence. The sentence of five years in count two is
disturbingly inappropriate calling for interference. The sentence in Count Two
has to be reduced in the circumstances.
Accordingly, the
convictions are confirmed but sentence is set aside and substituted by the
following:
"Count One - five
years imprisonment.
Count Two - three years
imprisonment.
Total - eight years
imprisonment, of which three years is suspended for four years on condition
that the accused, in that period, does not commit any offence involving theft
or dishonesty and for which he is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
without the option of a fine."
In Count One, the accused was
fortunate in that he was not charged with the ideal charge of contravening
Section 60A of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:14] (as amended by the
Electricity Amendment Act 12 of 2007).
Section 60A(3) of the Electricity
Act [Chapter 13:14] (as amended by the Electricity Amendment Act 12 of 2007)
provides:
"Any person who, without lawful
excuse, the proof whereof shall lie to him or her -
(a)…,.;
(b) Cuts, damages, destroys or
interferes with any apparatus for generating, transmitting, distributing, or
supplying electricity;
Shall be guilty of an offence, and,
if there are no special circumstances peculiar to the case, as
provided for in subsection (4), be liable to imprisonment for a period not less
than ten years."
