19700325 TZHC Dar es salaam2

'1.JV ucIs o/cx ao pcop PUP P9T1oc eD1r wi:tj P91.Tnvsse ueie pueT.xJ it etl$ s& pei eq O'qn pew .Ic& 9q. xoj areeq oq pvxT eq en,eq wtiT PfItWB8 PUP UT 9WO uetTcf9 UOtTM SUIOI c/a jj lneasCTOeW q.OtI't( 9gq. 1flt 9UTUBA9 qviq xaq '4 PJPr 9 1. 9 H '14 fTI q.Ou pp OttM TZOO LOJJO aO!tOd eqq. Aq wtq 1.UT3 AOITdST1OO 8 SM sea 9DU$JOp s,quujjedda 91.1w 91OU Jo tep f94 UpW pue tI0O 91TT uo 1utTn2c[ ponuptxoo eq eietit •dn-ooI at. otvc peqsncT eq pun penolnO$ Dq O. .I9CO U p(9 9q o tht-0C1 9114- OUT 051 O. pe1J3I ON 0 dt-)iOO1 atfl. ut .ttcJ 2Ueq eiojeq paqoct?o9 eq 01. JeCu1p 'tOjT? 01. peenjoa eq uoeq.s eopod 9t •uoT.e eotlod oq. o. uitq oNeq. pue 1.u 9 1add 8 Gi1q. enpqus 01. PODRUVW .9041. Rrtq.ueAo Pue dnOa 2 OtT1. pautoC T90,f aol.oacTeuI 19tt Se urq ue1eq pure qxaTovi. g.T9& sea 1.uejedcfe eq - qulqT -1ethT eq q.se.zzt deq ol aeq aqj. oq.ut peqeit eq v OP 9 9 1q oq. ueeq qo -iq& OOU EJçTJ UO UetJd9 0/cl 1.'T luelTodde aq .te9 U( 3J aeq 9q. JO 9$JO UOt1.TCOd etq wo •pa8muep sea qoq etq IJ0tq& JO 9S.Itt00 9tT1. Ut P9nSUO 91.$ V 'JI8SWIq puejop o1 pgoaoj set ej •eeou eq. uo wTtT p9rtourtd put, eod uT guTop 9Wk eq wp pos 't0O Sq woaj dn pbdumC 1.UT9thI et tGw4o .iq eq. 1.uTecknT01, p9pU8Ut eq Ut S1qttJX8 Dt 9FTt 01. Iqnop OU 'zei,unoo Oq. uo SqsSvT2 puc sop4oq 1.09t100 O uu44 eq petjtq.se1. uOqc9 c/a 1.U 8 eqI. 91 9C YLjq. U! GuOS.T u0w v eps1.to pDu9W0I 1902 t01.OeCT$U1 Pula UuCtT 3d OTTqM I9UMO a'14. OtAx9.Ut O. IIIq 8141. O1.UT 1.Ut uqifjqTS 3/ •uoeq 9A.914 OU pflO149 1.T t10114M U90 S9 '4-r2141. peotOu pILe •ujd I1 zcr egnqeg UAOUN itq 9 o1 8tU90 iVeq toq fiuoio et.idozctde eqq. peitosqo J941 .t11fl. 91119 98W 01. 9819 014. Ut7?UTtt1Oq. 1Vt1p UQ ecrt 'OU S .1 9q7 e9wj u9qde 1 1902 x0j.09cTeu ' k1d PUV er2ucj 9u9t1 ' eqeuo t1.0e1.9c j..j peptvou qçW4 'tzoq ! e 8Z9O'JJO eoOd JO 1O3q.(T 7 '.t1BW 11o14ç !111.0q. UT MOT& Al UT 188dc39 'H qtmoo puoo9s 0141. UO 1.U0u 10 !dttJ! CtJ.UOw 01. TO -/oot 1U8 1.U 1100 .9xTj 814q. UO 1.tX9tUU09tdW qUOW eeiqq. 10 -/00? P 9 UTJ pue p91.otMxOo SeM 9fl d3 COU9UTPIO 00O O0tO 141- JO ?0T PUP 101 SuoT1. 08 S 01 £.xeuoo uoçq.8 80t[O e zeuuw UT1.111U! PUC 91104.OI C Ut UTAetl$q pU9 8p03 19U 9 d e 141 3° (q) (C) Un SUOT,1.09S 01. £.x.zq.uOo 29TInp CT.14 JO IX013It09X9 9fl') Ut CIT14M 90!j30 00T10 C ?t1pot1,]4Sqo PUC PuTq.Tnesse 'SCOU?JJO Ot1. JTjTK pefJxCqo SCM '41° 1..t11OO C 9S9O StJ1. Ut 1.UC!1 9 thX 14L - •23 'ooi •thçj 'eotxCup.tQ 90t0J CoTlod 91T,$. JO ?01 Pue tot 89/0 UOt 901Od C ;e t9uuew 0UTq.jnSUT pue SnOOç.Z v w 2UTAeqeq fmopi .8p00 IUT 914g. JO (q)(C) ti' e/o S91.11P !141. JO U0T10OX9 ClIp Ut 9ttU.t I90J0 eottod C 2Ut1.0111.SO PUt? tt1.tflCCSV :wttoo 1.1 :.fJJH0 .•'''' 0IfldHHL SItS CA iTiN.PlLTdcTV .........'' ' }TtZIVI •M 0 1.U8PTi 1-bsq CuT 9 •2 M 9.10Jea TZOTI IN 1.OT'!cl !ZOCtW JO 1. 11 U0 0 1. 0 !'1. 2 Tcl 914 JO 6961 30 Lot °N 9993 ptttmtt3 1CUT!'10 oL6t T0 9! 011 'W&dcW TINIWPIO wriv si acr IV vimvzxvtL Jo Wfloo HIH 9HI NI r / Awl - 2 - him, and eventually the inspector came in and ordered him to the iand rover. The District Magistrate whom he expected to help him turned against him and told, the policemen to place him in the lock up over- night.. He called no witnesses. This was a simple conflict of factual evidence which the magistrate decided against the appellant. I find thut none of the grounds of appeal has any merit. The appellant alleges that the trial magistrate gave undue weight to the evidence of the District Magistrate. There is nothing in the record to indicate that he did, so. lie alleges that three witnesses had contradicted th District ?iagtstrate, in that they had said that they had met him walking along the road to the rest house while the District Magistrate had said that they had come to the rest house and called him to assist because of the unruly manner in which the appellant had been behaving. I have lboked crefuliy through the evidence and no where is it recorded that any of these three witnesses had said that they had met the District Hagistrate walkin aion the road towards the rest house. The appellant also argues that basically the trial magiatrate made a finding against h(3 weight of evidence since in the final analysis it was a question of word against word as between himself and D/C Stephen as to how the incident had begun. ThIs is not so. Though 1)/C Nlikana was outside at the time, it Is clear from his evidence that he had an unobstructed view of what was taking place inside the bar. He testified that he did see the first blow, so that in fact jilikana's evidence supports that of i/c Stephen on the way in which the incident began. I think also that the trial magistrate was correct in holding that the appellnt appeared to be nursing a grudge against the police. dthough the appellant did not say this in so many words the general tenor of his evidence was that the police had been victimisinL, him. It is for this reason that the tfial magistrate correctly concluded that the appellant thouht that the police were after him and for that reason at'acked D/C Stephen in the manner in which he did. In his memorandum of appeal the appellant also argues that the offence of bobstructing the police in the execution of their duty had not been established. He states that collecting glasses or bottles from a bar could not be part of the duty of a police officer who sought to establish that a sale of intoxicating liquor had taken place after 11 p.m. This argument is totally without merit. The fact that there Ieer bottles from which liquor had been consumed and half filled glasseL. from which people were drinking would be evidence that liquor was being sold after 11.00 p.m. Obstructing the police whilst he was collecting this evidence would be assaulting him in the course of his duty. On the second count the burden of the appellant's memorandum is that the trial magistrate erred in not accepting his version of what happened at the police stalion as reasonable and true. The evidence was so overwhelming in this respect that the trial magistrate could not have come to any other conclusion but that which he did. Finally the appellant urges that the sentences were too harsh. If anything the appellant has been fortunate in not being sent to pxison. Assaulting a police officer in the coarse of his duty is a serIous matter. Such an assault tends to lower the respect for law and order in the district, more so when it comes from a court clerk who ought to know bcter and should have been exerting his efforts towards upholding the enforcement of the lawso The fact that the appellant was drunk can hardly be taken as a strongly mitigating factor as he should have known better than to allow himself to drink so much as to lose completely all sense of self control. 0.• 3 -3- The appellant states that his gross salary ia s hs 305/— a month. I do not consider , that the fine of AS 300/— in any way excessive. It is sufficiently heavy, to jrnproso upon the appellant the' gravity of the offence which he has oommitted. iccordingly the. appeal is dismissed in its entirety. Delivered in Court at Dar es Salaarn this 25th c)ay of 11arch, 1970. (P.T. GE0RGLS CHTh'F JUST1C .--- .' __jT. 1 1' --