R v Shunga White (Criminal Review Case 1 of 1937) [1937] ZMHCNR 1 (31 December 1937)

[Vol. I R. v. SHUNGA WHITE. A Chimina l R e v ie w Case o f 1937. Burglary and theft—five charges—all offences committed during course of one night— value of property stolen not considerable—entry in each case in same manner and dwelling-houses all close to each other—sentences totalling five years’ imprisonment with hard labour in such circum­ stances excessive. Where a series o f offences o f a similar nature and carried out in a similar manner are committed within a short period, the whole series forming one lapse into crime, the convicting Court must take this into consideration in passing sentence. For further cases in which are considered the principles governing punishment see R. v. Sikopo John p. 102 ante; R. v. Edward Nsokolo 2 N. R. L. R. p. 85 and Simasiku v. The King 4 N. R. L. R. p. 114. F rancis, J .: I have reviewed cases Nos. 11 and 12/37, Lusaka. An aggregate of five years’ imprisonment for five offences of burglary o f the nature described is too severe and I am not prepared to let it stand. I have given reason so many times for intervention in the matter o f severity o f punishment, particularly in cases involving theft, and would commend the Magistrate’s attention to a discussion on the subject which took place before the Supreme Court of Kenya in its Revisional Juris­ diction in Rex v. Malakwen Arap Kogo (K. L. R. Vol. X V , 1933, at p. 115). The principles therein defined may be accepted as authoritative and I agree with them. The five offences here under review were committed during the course o f one night. The value o f the articles stolen does not appear to amount to more than £8. In every case entry seems to have been obtained through unlocked doors o f the various flats in question. These flats are quite close to one another. The sentence o f one year in the third charge of case No. 11 is to run concurrently with the two sentences imposed in respect of the first and second charges. The sentence o f one year in respect o f the first charge in case No. 12 is to be consecutive with two consecutive sentences o f one year each in respect o f case No. 11 and the sentence o f one year in respect o f the second charge in case No. 12 is to run concurrently with the cumula­ tive sentence of three years referred to above. In the result the accused will serve three years instead o f five years. The Resident Magistrate should remember to forward for confirma­ tion sentences beyond his competency.