15 Dec 2025
The High Court refused to interfere: the Sessions Courts properly exercised sentencing discretion, the sentences were within statutory limits, and consecutive sentences were justified because the offences involved different times, places and victims; no legal error or manifest excess was shown.
15 Dec 2025
The appellate court found no error in the exercise of sentencing discretion by the Sessions Judges; the sentences were within lawful discretionary limits, appropriately balanced public interest and mitigating factors, and consecutive terms were justified because the offences involved different times, places and victims; appellant's request for reduction was refused.
15 Dec 2025
The High Court refused to interfere because the Sessions Courts exercised sentencing discretion within lawful bounds, considered public interest, appellant's background and plea, and the offences were distinct in time, place and victims so consecutive sentences were appropriate; no legal error or manifest excess was shown.
5 Nov 2025
The court found section 39C(1)(b) applicable because the defendant had two prior convictions under section 15(1)(a), requiring a mandatory sentence within five to seven years and whipping up to three strokes; balancing mitigation (guilty plea, remorse, personal circumstances) against public interest and prior convictions the court sentenced the defendant to five years' imprisonment, one stroke of whipping and two years' supervision and ordered the sentence to run consecutively after completion of the existing sentence for BK-83D-678-06/2025 pursuant to s.282(d).
9 Jul 2025
The court convicted the accused of robbery with a deadly weapon; although an early guilty plea merited mitigation, the pattern of multiple robberies in the same month and public interest outweighed full mitigation; statutory constraint under s.292(1) KTJ required the sentence to commence after completion of the prior sentence, hence the court imposed 2 years' imprisonment and 3 strokes to commence after completion of BA-62RS-17-05/2025.
28 Nov 2024
High Court held Sessions Judge did not err in principle and properly exercised discretion to order the 6‑year sentence for the s.395 robbery to run consecutively to the 5‑year s.392 sentence because the offences involved different victims, were serious and implicated public safety; mitigating features (no proved prior convictions, age) were considered but did not outweigh factors warranting consecutive sentences, therefore appeal dismissed.
18 Oct 2024
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's sentences because the six-year imprisonment and three strokes per count were proportionate deterrent sentences within statutory limits for each s14(a) offence; the offences were distinct in date/time/place/manner so consecutive sentences were appropriate under CPC s282(d); there was no appealable error in sentencing.
8 Oct 2024
Appeal dismissed. The High Court held the Sessions Court did not misapply sentencing principles: the offences were committed at different times against different victims so consecutive sentences were lawful; the totality and one-transaction considerations were properly applied and there was no demonstrated crushing effect meriting interference; therefore the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court are upheld.
8 Oct 2024
The High Court upheld the Sessions Court sentences because the offences were committed at different times against different victims (not one transaction), the Sessions Court properly applied sentencing principles including breach of trust and public deterrence, and the cumulative sentence was not manifestly excessive or legally improper, thus consecutive sentences were appropriate.
19 Jul 2024
The offences were three distinct armed robberies committed on different dates and at different places; consequently the appropriate exercise of sentencing discretion is to impose a 6‑year imprisonment term with 2 whippings for the present count and order it to run consecutively with the sentences in AA-62RS-35-08/2023 and AA-62RS-37-08/2023, within the statutory maximum under ss.395 and 397 Penal Code.