Criminal Session No

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA JUDICIARY IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA MTWARA- SUB REGISTRY AT MTWARA CRIMINAL SESSION NO. 12656 OF 2024 THE REPUBLIC VERSUS HAMIS HAMIDU HAMIS @ BIRIU RULING ON SENTENCE 22Jd &24h July, 2024 MPAZE J:. On 22nd July, 2024 Hamis Hamidu Hamis entered a plea of guilty to the offence of Manslaughter. After the accused admitted to the charges, State Attorney Ms. Farida Kiobya narrated the facts of the case, which the accused admitted as true and correct. Based on these facts, the court found the accused guilty of Manslaughter and convicted him, with sentencing reserved until today. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the prosecution's request for a severe penalty, arguing that the accused had taken the life of someone who was relied upon by his family and had deprived the deceased of his constitutional right to life. 1 Conversely, the defence requested the minimal possible sentence, noting that there was a dispute between the accused and the deceased on the day of the incident. The defence argued that the accused had attempted to leave the scene to avoid further conflict but was followed to his home by the deceased, which led to the altercation and subsequent death. Advocate Msalengi also urged the court to consider the accused's cooperation since the incident, including transporting the deceased to the hospital and later reporting to the police. He emphasized the accused's young age. The objectives of sentencing include deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. In Tanzania, the Sentencing Guidelines 2023 provide a framework for sentencing, which considers aggravating and mitigating factors as crucial elements, along with the circumstances and seriousness of the offence. There is no dispute that the offence in question is serious, as it typically warrants a life imprisonment sentence. However, an accused person may avoid life imprisonment depending on the circumstances of the offence committed and his conduct thereafter. The Guidelines outline when an offence is classified as High Level, Medium Level, or Low Level. Upon examining the facts of this case, in line 2 with what has been stated in the caution statement and extrajudicial statements (Exhibits P2 and P3), the following account is noted. In the facts of the case, it was stated, and I quote; ' On 2$h December, 2023 during the night, the deceased went to the residence of the accused. Upon meeting, they began to fight. During the altercation, the accused picked up a piece of wood and struck the deceased on the head, causing the deceased to fall, lose consciousness, and bleed. The accused then transported the deceased to the hospital, but the deceased passed away en route.' Comparing these facts with the accused's statements in Exhibits P2 and P3, where the accused described the deceased first causing a disturbance on Christmas Eve, he decided to leave the place, but the deceased followed him home with a piece of wood and attacked him. In self defence, the accused picked up a stick that was nearby and struck the deceased, who then fell and lost consciousness. This action indicates the accused acted in self defence. The deceased's actions appear to have significantly contributed to the fatal outcome. The accused had already left the scene to avoid conflict, but the deceased followed him to his home and reignited the disturbance. Had the deceased not pursued the accused, the tragic 3 incident would likely not have occurred as it did. This situation exemplifies the saying that the deceased brought about his own death. Moreover, the facts show that after the incident, the accused did not flee. Instead, he took part in efforts to save the deceased's life by rushing him to the hospital and later informing the authorities and the deceased's relatives about the incident. This demonstrates his remorse. Given this context, the offence falls into the Low Level category, where one of the mitigating factors is the use of unreasonable force in self defence. At this level, the sentencing range is between 4 years to an absolute conditional discharge. Considering the circumstances outlined, I find that a 12 months conditional discharge is an appropriate sentence for the accused. Therefore, I hereby sentence Hamis Hamidu Hamis to 12 months of conditional discharge on the condition that he should not commit any offence in this period. It is so ordered. Dated at Mtwara this 24th July, 2024. 4 COURT: Right of appeal fully explained. 5