4 Nov 2025
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge correctly found the offences were distinct in time so the one transaction rule did not apply; the sentences imposed were not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, and the aggregate sentence did not breach the totality principle given statutory maxima and the need for deterrence.
9 Oct 2025
The court accepted the accused's guilty pleas to reduced offences under section 304(a) but afforded limited mitigation because the pleas followed written representations resulting in charge reductions; given the aggravating factors (abuse of vulnerable victims, concealment of bodies), the need to protect public interest and absence of transactional nexus between the two offences, the appropriate sentences are 15 years for Case No.7 and 17 years for Case No.4, to run consecutively.
8 Oct 2024
The High Court upheld the Sessions Court sentence: the offences were committed at different times and against different victims and therefore not one transaction; consecutive sentences were lawful and not manifestly excessive given breach of trust, gravity of sexual offences against children and public interest in deterrence; no sufficient mitigation or remorse to justify reduction or concurrency.
19 Jul 2024
Because the accused committed two separate robberies on different dates and at different locations, the court treated them as distinct offences and, applying s292(1) CPC and relevant authorities, ordered the sentence for the present conviction to commence after the existing sentence and to run consecutively; the sentence imposed was within statutory limits and justified by public interest and seriousness of the offences.
30 May 2024
The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded the prosecution discharged its burden: the 2013 offence was statutory rape (victim aged 15) and required no consent proof; the 2018 offence was proved to be non-consensual by the victim's consistent testimony corroborated by family witnesses, medical evidence and the accused's incriminating conduct. Convictions were therefore affirmed; concurrent/consecutive sentencing exercise was lawful and the sentences were ordered to run consecutively, with a reduction in the number of strokes for the 2018 offence from 15 to 10.
14 May 2024
The appellant failed to demonstrate that the Sessions Court erred in principle or imposed a manifestly excessive sentence; the judge lawfully ordered consecutive sentences because the two rapes were separated by a sufficient cooling-off period and involved fresh intention, making consecutive sentences appropriate and within statutory limits.
5 Jan 2024
The Court of Appeal found no substantial or compelling reason to disturb the sentences: the three offences included a distinct third offence justifying consecutive sentencing, the seriousness and aggravating factors (father raping his 16-year-old daughter) outweigh mitigation, and the overall 40-year aggregate sentence plus SOACA 2017 orders is not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
26 Oct 2023
Accused's early guilty pleas were mitigating but outweighed by frequency and seriousness of separate offences and recent prior convictions; therefore accused is convicted on all four counts and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 36 months imprisonment (12 + 12 + 6 + 6 months) with caning as ordered for the burglary counts; sentences are to run separately/consecutively to reflect separate transactions and serve deterrence/public interest while not producing a crushing effect.
16 Aug 2023
Guilty plea accepted but did not warrant substantial reduction given premeditation, serious violence, multiple rapes, and severe physical and psychological harm to victim; sentences imposed were within statutory limits and consecutive terms were appropriate to reflect distinct offences and public interest.
7 Aug 2023
Section 172G CPC entitles an accused who pleads guilty before trial to sentencing not exceeding half the statutory maximum; subsection 172D(2) on minimum terms is inapplicable absent a plea bargaining disposition under s172C; therefore reducing the s420 term to 3 months was lawful and not prohibited by the statutory minimum; the magistrate's original sentences were manifestly excessive and were properly reduced; the sentences are to run consecutively from date of arrest and the whipping order and fines remain unaffected.