andeh philip vs the republic 1987 tzca 57 15 september 1987

: our? 07 ./ hd hhJGdh ( c o n i; s k U S T a JV., j . , hg. J. 'vTy'' —; —Li. , 7- ,j_i'.----;,t GF 1: • • • • "OhC UC vj"— « • « V-K-- i r or- b. _cn o I I i C o u■urt r t _ \ of 3 a nia at ; vOnUS / C_c\L l^-tn day oj Oi.X’ O ^_/c0 iisi riirinal u io n s o £ c e iio , J U D G 3 H Z W T OF ■»p-T j r~...ha w U.. X r T T ^ n / -t\ /■ L'- -i. i -_’ J ._ q t f 0 O # 1- « o e a-;^ellant ~ra C il piir* ^r-. ~/a£ c o r 7i c ; s a o nans lau^ht er on 1^ . j.oo 3 •p^ nn \;ne H i g h Court, The a:; el cx X! "'./X r;s o e r c o n at n i g h t on 2 5 . 1 2 . 0 1 he course of ti_ T nit the r| S C 0 a £ cl, a y o u n g -oRccer-Dy, oy acci:;e: '" e c s a p ^ r l d i e d £ f'©'•:/ lave l ater ao a recult of a 3a hull vfh i d : . jl: i int er c r a m a5.1 h a e n o r e are .ant ha d b e e n p r o p e r l y convicted, e y e -i/ U l-n o .. « .L'r caw the dight a n d the i n jur y causec ■Oi 4- d e c e a c e i, P . " T* 3 an d 7," J.5 j two CiX £3Z. n o 8 I 8 G ,j 3 L n 3 IL ou rs of th e an el.la.nt, 'were a p p r o a c h e d b y the app e l l a n t ;ne ‘ o i l o 'v rin ^ c the i n c i d e n t , to i n t e r v e n e vjith th aeceasec t s , and the a p p ellant /and ofi'ered to pay fo .caj al ezienses ~*fs.icl 7sre n e e d e d -'--j-. i.t -r/ac an ur,l’ortu::ate i n c i d e n t , but the evidence e s t a b l i s h e d clea r l y tli ;ne :-:ellant y/as 'or tlie cleatn o:: C 8 £ C ec /? 2 - The appellant hovrevc in police and p r i s o n custody for about k-j y e a r s before he was s e n t e n c e d b y the **t • ._-r. /-< 1 r~\- , r-igr, v o u r i . tnai jucge seiiteuoe:'. the a p p e l l a n t to 3 ’ / ears irrrriconnent • K r . I.usei for the a p p e l l a n t has s u ~»--3~ v q ■ — 0--*au s on cencg ^ cno c ^ ^ r c ^ ^c— l c s g ^ v & s excessive. K r • l.'.le^ra for the ■■'epuhlic arrses. e are cf the Sc.:;e v i e w . . 7e do not thinh the trial jud^re had .given sufficient ccncicerovhon to the long’ p e r i o d the appellant had been in custody before he %/z .g tried and sentenc s d . T a k i n g all the cir cu:v.atances into conGidera.tion we disniss the a ~eal against conviction, hut we w i l l reduce the s e n t e n c e of i n p r i oonnent i n r o s e d on the app e l l a n t to s uch terra ac w i l l result in the a p p e l l a n t ’s i: i.ediate r e i s a s e f r on. pr is o n . DnT3_} at VhlUGnh this 1 5 th da y of G-apt sr.il sr, 19 C 7 ce] :1 I7 this it CO' Ci ; he original