[2016] UGHCCRD 493
The court found that although the accused pleaded guilty, it was not at the earliest opportunity, and the court had already incurred expenses due to the trial. The gravity and prevalence of aggravated robbery warranted a deterrent sentence. The accused were first offenders and young, which was considered in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] UGHCCRD 493
- Parties
- Applicant: Uganda; Defendant: Agaba Richard; Defendant: Mwetonde Erias
- Court
- HC: Criminal Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- HCT – 01 – CR – CS – 0040 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Law / Sentencing
- Outcome
- convicted on plea of guilty; sentenced to 21 years imprisonment each.
- Judges
- Ojok, J
- Legal Topics
- Aggravated Robbery, Sentencing Guidelines, Plea of Guilty, Remand Period, Victim Compensation
- 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
Uganda
Applicant
Agaba Richard
Defendant
Mwetonde Erias
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should receive a lenient or severe sentence for aggravated robbery.
- 2 Whether the time spent on remand should be considered in sentencing.
- 3 Whether compensation to the victim is warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the accused pleaded guilty, it was not at the earliest opportunity, and the court had already incurred expenses due to the trial. The gravity and prevalence of aggravated robbery warranted a deterrent sentence. The accused were first offenders and young, which was considered in mitigation. The court also took into account the four years spent on remand. Balancing these factors, the court sentenced each accused to 21 years imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to deter others.
Court Disposition
convicted on plea of guilty; sentenced to 21 years imprisonment each.
Orders
- A1 and A2 are sentenced to 21 years imprisonment each.
- Time spent on remand (4 years) considered in sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT IN UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL**
**HCT – 01 – CR – CS – 0040 OF 2014**
**UGANDA............................................................................................. PROSECUTOR**
**VERSUS**
**AGABA RICHARD**
**MWETONDE ERIAS .................................................................................. ACCUSED**
**BEFORE: HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE OYUKO. ANTHONY OJOK, JUDGE.**
**SENTENCING AND REASONS**
The accused were indicted with Aggravated Robbery Contrary to **Section 285 and 286(2)** of the Penal Code Act. It was alleged that on 17th August 2013 at Kyakapeche Village in Kyenjojo District the accused robbed Beinomugisha Atha a Motorcycle Reg. No. UEA 840H and at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the said robbery was in possession of a deadly weapon to wit a hammer and a rope.
The accused at arraignment denied the offence however as the full trial was proceeding and the Principal had testified they changed their pleas and pleaded guilty to the offence.
The accused were therefore convicted on their own plea of guilty.
The victim was hit on the head several times but was lucky and survived though his Motorcycle was stolen. He had saved up for it for 3 years and had hardly used it for 2 months. Due to the offence he can no longer do anything for himself due to the pain that is due to the actions of the accused.
Prosecution prayed for 30 years and compensation to the victim.
On allocutus Counsel on state brief prayed for a lenient sentence, that the accused were remorseful and young men and therefore 30 years would prohibit the accused from expressing their remorsefulness and prayed for 10 years. She also prayed that Court puts into consideration the time spent on remand and the fact that A1 is sickly.
The offence of Aggravated Robbery is a serious offence and carries death as a maximum sentence. The accused think that they saved Courts time by pleading guilty mid trial; however, this is not the case. This Court had already incurred expenses which it would have otherwise avoided all together if the accused had pleaded guilty from the very beginning. This is therefore, to encourage offenders to plead guilty from the very beginning if they know they committed the offence to save Court’s time. That notwithstanding the accused are first offenders young and capable of reform but the offence they committed is rampant and of a very serious nature.
I accordingly, sentence A1 and A2 to 21 years each due to the gravity of the offence and also to deter the other would be offenders who should pick a leaf and not think of committing the same. I have put into consideration the 4 years spent by the accused on remand.
Right of appeal explained.
**.....................................**
**OYUKO. ANTHONY OJOK**
**JUDGE**
**15/11/16**