daud lingston vs republic 2015 tzhc 2216 15 july 2015

daud lingston vs republic 2015 tzhc 2216 15 july 2015

The evidence of PW1 and PW3 was sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; identification was proper and did not require an identification parade; there was no denial of the right to call defence witnesses; however, the sentence of 30 years was excessive for a first offender and should be reduced to 10 years under the appropriate section of the Penal Code.

Citation
daud lingston vs republic 2015 tzhc 2216 15 july 2015
Parties
Appellant: Daud Lingston; Respondent: The Republic
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Attempted Rape, Sentencing, Identification Evidence, Right to Call Witnesses, Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Attempted Rape Sentencing Identification Evidence Right to Call Witnesses Standard of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daud Lingston

Appellant

The Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction for attempted rape was based on sufficient evidence
  2. 2 Whether the identification of the accused was proper
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was denied the right to call defence witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of PW1 and PW3 was sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; identification was proper and did not require an identification parade; there was no denial of the right to call defence witnesses; however, the sentence of 30 years was excessive for a first offender and should be reduced to 10 years under the appropriate section of the Penal Code.

Court Disposition

appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Conviction varied to offence under Section 140(a) of the Penal Code
  • Sentence reduced to 10 years imprisonment effective from 21st January, 2003