The appellant was sentenced to three months imprisonment,
which was wholly suspended. In addition, the appellant and all those claiming
occupation through him were issued with an eviction order from the property
known as the Remaining Extent of Olympus Block, West Nicholson….,.
WHETHER THE
SENTENCE WAS APPROPRIATE
I must comment on the propriety of the sentence ...
The appellant was sentenced to three months imprisonment,
which was wholly suspended. In addition, the appellant and all those claiming
occupation through him were issued with an eviction order from the property
known as the Remaining Extent of Olympus Block, West Nicholson….,.
WHETHER THE
SENTENCE WAS APPROPRIATE
I must comment on the propriety of the sentence imposed by
the trial court.
The sentence imposed in this matter was three months
imprisonment wholly suspended for five years on condition the appellant did not
within that period commit an offence involving the holding, using or occupation
of gazetted land without lawful authority and for which he is sentenced to
imprisonment without the option of a fine. In addition, the learned magistrate
ordered the eviction of the appellant from the property.
Firstly, the sentence is rather unusual in that the
suspended sentence did not make sense at all regard being had to the fact that
the appellant was being evicted from gazetted land on the date of the
sentence. There was no likelihood of the
appellant occupying another piece of land in violation of the Gazetted Lands
(Consequential Provisions) Act [Chapter 20:28]. The suspended sentence served
no useful purpose. In terms of section 3 of the Gazetted Lands (Consequential
Provisions) Act [Chapter 20:28], the appellant was liable to pay a fine not
exceeding level seven or to imprisonment not exceeding two years or to both
such fine and imprisonment.
A sentence of an appropriate fine would have
served the justice of the case.
