AG v Jasi & Another (Crim. Appeal 279 of 1986; SC 2 of 1987) [1987] ZWSC 2 (27 January 1987)
The magistrate erred by failing to consider and apply the mandatory minimum sentence or make a finding on special circumstances as required by law; thus, the sentences were set aside and the matter remitted for proper consideration.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] ZWSC 2
- Parties
- Appellant: The Attorney-General; Respondent: Rinoti Chinaka Jasi; Respondent: Wilson William Nharingo
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- Crim. Appeal 279 of 1986 ; SC 2 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- sentences set aside and matter remitted for re-sentencing
- Legal Topics
- Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Review of Sentence, Special Circumstances, Unlawful Sale of Ivory
- 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
The Attorney-General
Appellant
Rinoti Chinaka Jasi
Respondent
Wilson William Nharingo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the magistrate erred by failing to apply the mandatory minimum sentence under the Parks and Wild Life Act as amended
- 2 Whether special circumstances existed to justify a lesser penalty
Ratio Decidendi
The magistrate erred by failing to consider and apply the mandatory minimum sentence or make a finding on special circumstances as required by law; thus, the sentences were set aside and the matter remitted for proper consideration.
Court Disposition
sentences set aside and matter remitted for re-sentencing
Orders
- Sentences imposed by the trial magistrate are set aside.
- Matter remitted to the magistrate for investigation into special circumstances and re-sentencing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. 2/87 Crim. Appeal No. 279/86 THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v (1) RINOTI CHINAKA JASI (2) WILSON WILLIAM NHARINGO SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, JANUARY 27, 1987. Before: McNALLY, JA, In Chambers, in terms of s 23 of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe Act 1981. This matter comes before me by way of a request from the Attorney -General that I should exercise my powers of review to set aside the sentences imposed by the magistrate. The facts are these: The two accused persons were convicted, on a plea of guilty, of contravening s 47(3) as read with s 47(5) as read with s 34, of the Parks and Wild Life Act, No.14 of 1975. The convictions were apparently in order. The offence concerned the unlawful sale of ivory. The magistrate appears to have overlooked the mandatory minimum penalties introduced on March 1986 by Act No. 35 of 1985. For this reason the Attorney-General was given leave by me to appeal against the sentences imposed, which were, in each case, a fine o f $500 or in default five months’ imprisonment with labour. The Attorney-General has now pointed out that if the appeal comes before this Court, as it is due to do on 3 March 1987, the Court will need to know what the position is with regard to special circumstances, since the mandatory minimum sentence need not be imposed where the magistrate finds special circumstances. The Act requires him to record the facts, if any, justifying the imposition of a lesser penalty. S. C. 2/87 In the circumstances the Attorney-General suggests that it would be more appropriate to deal with this matter by way of review at this stage. It seems beyond argument that the magistrate erred in overlooking the amendment to the legislation and accordingly I agree that it is a waste of time to have this question argued before the full Court. Moreover, there can be no prejudice to the accused persons in taking the course which I propose to take. The sentences were incompetent in the absence of a finding of special circumstances. Accordingly, in the exercise of my powers of review under 23 of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe Act, and with the concurrence of GUBBAY, J.., I hereby set aside the sentences imposed by the trial magistrate and remit the matter to him for an investigation into the question of special circumstances and for re -sentencing in the light of that investigation. A copy of this judgment should be sent to the first respondent and to the second respondent's legal practitioner, as well as to the attorney -General.