Birisigala Charles v Uganda (Criminal Appeal 166 of 2016)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a 20-year sentence imposed for aggravated defilement. The sole ground was that the trial Judge sentenced the Appellant without weighing his mitigating factors, making the sentence manifestly harsh and excessive. Restating the settled principle that an appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's sentencing discretion unless the sentence is illegal or so manifestly excessive as to amount to an injustice, the Court found from the trial Judge's reasons that she had considered all that was said by both the prosecution and defence, the victim's age, and the period spent on remand. The sentence fell within the guideline range, so the Court found no basis to interfere.

Outcome

Appeal against sentence dismissed; 20 years' imprisonment for aggravated defilement confirmed.

Facts

The Appellant was indicted for aggravated defilement contrary to section 116(4)(a) of the Penal Code Act. It was alleged that on 26 October 2012 at Kyakatamara Village, Rakai District, he performed a sexual act on a girl recorded in the indictment as aged 11 years. After a full trial in the High Court at Masaka, he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. In mitigation he stated he had young children to look after and prayed for leniency; in aggravation the State noted the young age of the victim and that the Appellant had denied the offence and proceeded through a full trial. The trial Judge stated she had considered submissions from both sides, the victim's young age and lasting effect on her, and the time the Appellant had spent on remand before imposing the sentence. The Appellant, granted leave to appeal against sentence only, challenged the sentence as manifestly harsh and excessive.

Issues

1. Whether the trial Judge erred by sentencing the Appellant to 20 years' imprisonment without considering the mitigating factors, rendering the sentence manifestly harsh and excessive.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Penal Code Act Cap 120 s.116(4)(a)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 134(2)
• Trial on Indictments Act Cap 25 s.132(1)(b)
• Trial on Indictments Act Cap 25 s.131(1)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I No. 13-10, Rule 30(1)(a)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, Rule 43(3)(a)
• Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for the Courts of Judicature)(Practice) Directions, Legal Notice No. 8 of 2013, Paragraph 19

Cases cited (14)

• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda [1998] UGSC 20
• Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
• Kyalimpa Edward v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1995)
• R vs. De Haviland (1983) 5 Cr. App. R (s) 109
• Mbunya Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
• Ninsiima Gilbert v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2010)
• Katende Ahamad v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2004)
• Ntambala Fred v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2015)
• Pandya v R [1957] EA 335
• Abdallah Nabulere and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1978)
• Kiwalabye Bernard v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2001)
• Aharikundira Yusitina v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2015)
• Byaruhanga Okot v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2010)
• Bacwa Benon v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2014)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.