[1993] UGHCCRD 1
The court found that the sentence of 6 months imprisonment, being the maximum for the offence of being a rogue and vagabond, was unreasonably excessive in the circumstances. The appellant was a first offender and had pleaded guilty, factors which should have attracted a more lenient sentence. The trial magistrate's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1993] UGHCCRD 1
- Parties
- Appellant: Robert Bitanda; Respondent: Uganda
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- HC.CR. APPEAL NO.9 OF 1993
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed; sentence varied
- Judges
- Kato, J
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty, First Offender, Excessive Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Robert Bitanda
Appellant
Uganda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 6 months imprisonment imposed on a first offender who pleaded guilty was excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred in imposing the maximum sentence without sufficient justification.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of 6 months imprisonment, being the maximum for the offence of being a rogue and vagabond, was unreasonably excessive in the circumstances. The appellant was a first offender and had pleaded guilty, factors which should have attracted a more lenient sentence. The trial magistrate's reasons for imposing the maximum sentence were not supported by evidence and amounted to speculation. The appeal was allowed, the sentence set aside, and replaced with a sentence enabling the appellant to leave prison at the rising of the court.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed; sentence varied
Orders
- The sentence of 6 months imprisonment is set aside.
- The appellant is to be released at the rising of the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Hon
Justice Isekoko
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA COURT OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH $AT$ JINJA HO LDEN
## H. C. CR. APPEAL NO.9 OF 1993
ROBERT BITANDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
## VERSUS
UGANDA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE C. M. KATO **BEFORE:**
## JUDGMENT ---------------------------------------
The appellant Robert Bitanda has appealed to this court against a sentence of 6 months imposed upon him by magistrate grade I sitting at Jinja court. He was charged with the offence of being a rogue and vagabond contrary to section 163 of the Penal Code Act. ( It is not known under which sub-section, as section 163 has a number of sub-sections but judging from the facts of the case it must be sub-section (d).) He pleaded guilty to the charge and he was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.
When the appeal came up for hearing the learned state counsel was not present but he wrote to the District Registrar a letter dated 12/11/93 saying that he did not wish to oppose the appeal and that he did not wish to be heard at the hearing of the appeal. The appeal proceeded ex-parte.
Mr. Okalang who represented the appellant argued that the accused having pleaded guilty and having been a first offender should not have been sentenced to 6 months imprisonment which is the maximum sentence for this kind of crime. With due respect, I agree with the views expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The sentence was unreasonably excessive in all the circumstances of this case. There was nothing to warrant imposition of a maximum sentence in this case, the reasons given by the learned trial magistrate were not supported by evidence they were mere speculations.
$\frac{1}{2}$
There were enough facts to attract a linient sentence especially as the accused was a first offender and had pleaded guilty to the charge.
$\mathbb{P}^1 \subseteq \mathbb{P}^1 \cup \{ \mathbb{P}^2 \}$
$\sim$ 1.
In all these circumstances the appeal is allowed and the sentence of 6 months is set aside in its place it is to be replaced by such a sentence as will enable the appellant to leave the prison at the rising of this court. So be it done.
C. M. KATO JUDGE $12/11/93$
$12/11/93$ Later at 11.30 A. M.
$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}} \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}$
COURT:
The court is as before.
Judgment is read, signed and dated.
C. M. KATO JUDGE $12/11/93$