19770221 TZHC Dodoma 1

IN THE HIGH CWRT OF TANZANL AT DODOMA APPELLATE JTLRISDIOILON HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22 OF 1977 ORIGINAL CRIMLITAL CASE NO 269 OP 1976 OF THE DISTRICT CO(JRT OF k0TY .OkIDISTRICT LT NOiI BFORE ,E. B. KIAIIJA .. .DiSTRICT MPGISTRATE YOHANA 4SITA . . APPELLANT VERSUS THE RBTJBLIC . . ..•.... .... RESPON])N.T...,. CHARGES Unlawful possession of Govt. trophiss eIsa 66(1) (a) and 67(1) (2) and (a) of the Wildlife Conser- vation Act No. 12 of 1974. JIJDGMBNT MNZAVAS, J.. .. The acusédäfo.rnd guilty and convicted of being inunJaw- ful possession of G-6vernment trophy c/as 66(1) (a) and 67(1) (2) of the Wildlife Conservation Act Act No. 12 of 1974 and sentencec1 . to seven years imprisonment.. He is appealing against bo.th th öonviction and the, entençe,. In his argument before this Cofrt, the learned defence counsal argued that accused's "plea of guilty" before the lower court was equivocal and that the trial magistrate had erred in basing his conviction on an equivocal plea of guilty. In the alternative but without prejudice to the first argum:t it was argued that the sentence of seven years imprisonment was manifestly excessive. In rebuttal the learned state attney argued that the "plea of guilty" was unequivocal and That the learned magis trate was right in convicting the appellant on his own plea of guilty.. As for the sentence the Republic submitted that it was not so manifestly excessive as to warrant interference by this court. With respect I agree with the Republic's submission that th appellant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty. My reading of the record leaveno doubt that a proper plea of "guilty" was made and, after the prosecutor had given the facts constitu- ting the offence the accused is recorded as saying: "I admit the facts and thy are correct". In these circumstances the accused has blearly no right of appeal against, conviction, governed as the matter is by section 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal against conviction is incompetent and it accordingly fails. ....2 - 2 Js for the sentence of seven years imprisonthent, I agree with. the learned state attoriey that the accused deserved a severe sentence as he was fouid in possession. of -overn±ent trophies worth about Shs. 26,000/—. But.,on the other hand, and as rightly argued by the learned defence cou ,: :. ipping the sentence of seven yors imprisonment, the learied tritl megistrete flod take into account f-ctors which called for some leniency. The accused was, at the ageof six.tyyears, airst offender. This fact added to the fact that .he pleae.c iityt•o the ofioice entitled him to some loniency,:: I egree with the leaned mgistrte's observton that the circumstances celled for a sovorc sitenco, but looking at the totality of The facts and aáOiiod'sadvancod'age, it is the view of this Court that a sentence of five years imprisonment would have met the justice of the oase. The sentence of seven I years imprisonment is accordingly sot aside-aid in substitition therefor the appellant is sentenced to fIve yearsimprisonmont The learned magistrate's conf.icatiori order stnds. /\(5o Docloma N. . MnZ'WaS 21st Februery, 1977 1JDG 7. Chambakare for the appeThnt. . Ojero for t h e Republic/respondent.