Meme and Ano v R (SCA19/2019) [2020] SCCA 15 (21 August 2020);
Revision of sentence.
Count 1: The particulars of the offence under this count were that on 18th April 2017 at about 13.45 hours Mario Meme (the 1st appellant) and Perry Nassib (the 2nd appellant) conspired with one another with an intention to do grievous harm to Sandro Moses entered on to his property with a machete and cut his left arm. The appellants also bruised the arm of Lorenzo. Count 2: The particulars of this offence were that Mario Meme and Perry Nassib conspired together and unlawfully entered on to the property of Sandro Moses. While on the said property, Mario and Nassib committed unlawful acts. Count 3: The 1st and 2nd appellants were indicted and brought to trial on the above charges. In defence, the 2nd appellant stated that he committed the offences in self-defence. The 1st appellant on the other hand exercised his right to silence. Having evaluated the evidence of the Prosecution and the defence, the trial Judge convicted both appellants on Counts 1 and 3. The trial Judge acquitted the appellants on Count 2 because the essential ingredient of intention was not proved. Both terms of imprisonment were to run concurrently. The sentence is manifestly excessive considering the principle of sentencing and that the appellants are first offenders and that there were non-permanent injuries to the victims. Appellants’ submissions The respondent did not object to the withdrawal of grounds 1-5 which were challenging the conviction. In respect to ground 6, the respondent’s counsel left it to the Court to exercise its discretion on whether or not to maintain the fine imposed by the trial Judge. The punishment specifically attached to Section 219 (a) of the Penal Code Act under which the appellants were convicted is life imprisonment as the maximum sentence. “Any person who is convicted of an offence may be adjudged to make compensation to any person injured by his offence. Any such compensation may be either in addition to or in substitution for any other punishment.” (My emphasis) “… to merely aver that a sentence is harsh and excessive does not amount to a ground of appeal in as much just like application of facts in an area where the trial Judge reigns supreme except where his appreciation of facts may prove to be perverse.” (My emphasis)
JUDGMENT
Prof. Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JA
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court. The Prosecution led evidence incriminating the 1st and 2nd appellants on the following three counts.
Prof. Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JA