CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 309 OF 2000
1. BERNALD NAMASITA
2. RICHARD JUMBE
ORDER IN CONFIRMATION
The learned Judge who Reviewed the case, when the matter was brought before him, was of the view that the case should be set down for consideration of the sentence that was passed in respect of the case of burglary. Unfortunately, the learned Judge never gave an indication as to what was wrong with the penalty that was imposed on the Defendants in respect of the said charge of the offence of burglary. In view of the observations by the learned Judge, and indeed after perusing the record myself, this court will concern itself with the case of burglary at this confirmation hearing.
Facts of the Case
The Defendants pleaded guilty to the charge of the offence of burglary and they were convicted accordingly. It was the prosecution’s case, according to the statement of facts given to the court below, which facts were accepted as correct by both felons, that on the night of 29th September 1999, at around 8 .00 pm the complainant closed the doors to his dwelling house and went to sleep. Further, it was put as a fact that the complainant later woke up with view to go out and answer a call of nature. He was surprised to find the door to his said house wide open and his personal items stolen.
The matter was eventually reported to police who carried out an inquiry
that led to the arrest of the two convicts herein. At police they
both confessed to committing the offences of burglary and theft.
It is also pertinent to observe that the 1st Defendant, Bernard Namasita,
admitted that he has a previous conviction.
Regarding the sentence it has already been observed that the court below
imposed on the prisoners a term of imprisonment of forty-eight(48) months
for burgling into the house of the complainant. It must be noted
that the offence of burglary carries with it the penalty of death or imprisonment
for life. Just by looking at the punishment that is provided for
the offence it will be obvious that burglary is very serious offence.
It is in this regard that the High Court has said that the starting point,
in so far as the penalty for this offence is concerned, should be six(6)
Coming to the instant case it is my view that the sentence that was meted out on the second Defendant can not be faulted. It is within the guide lines set by the High Court. Indeed, there were strong mitigating factors in favour of the second convict viz the plea of guilt and that he has no previous record. The sentence on the second Defendant is therefore confirmed.
Made in open Court this 8th day of June 2001 at the Principal Registry,