Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HB100-09 - THE STATE vs BISHOP NCUBE

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment

Procedural Law-viz criminal review.

Procedural Law-viz criminal review re rape.
Sentencing-viz rape.
Sentencing-viz rape re multiple counts.
Sentencing-viz multiple counts re mathematical formula.
Sentencing-viz multiple counts re individual sentences.
Sentencing-viz multiple counts re cumulative sentence.

Rape and Approach to Sexual Assault Cases

This is a review judgment.

The accused was charged with six counts of rape to which charge he pleaded guilty and was convicted.

Sentencing re: Sexual Offences iro Rape

He was sentenced to a total of sixty years imprisonment...,.

The conviction is proper, but, it is the sentence which is a cause for concern.

The offence committed by the accused is no doubt abhorrent, and is, therefore, serious.

The learned trial magistrate used a mathematical formula in arriving at what he perceived to be a suitable sentence. The individual sentences are not excessive, but, taken cumulatively, they are – see S v Hassin 1976 (2) PH H58 (N).

The cumulative effect of the sentence is disturbingly shocking and inappropriate as it is excessive in the circumstances. For that reason, justice demands that it be interfered with.

Accordingly, the sentence in this matter is set aside and is substituted by the following –

“Count One to Two   – 10 years imprisonment.

Count Three to Four – 10 years imprisonment.

Count Five to Six      – 10 years imprisonment.

Total 30 years imprisonment.

Of the total 30 years, 5 years imprisonment is suspended for 5 years on condition accused does not during that period commit any offence of which sexual intercourse is an element.

Effective – 25 years imprisonment.”

Sentencing re: Approach iro Multiple Counts, Prescribed Sentences & the Cumulative or Concurrent Running of Sentences

No doubt a trial magistrate has a wide discretion which, however, if exercised judiciously, the appeal or review court will not interfere. See S v Coetzee 1970 (4) SA (RA). In S v Davious Nyathi HB60-03...,. NDOU J ably stated -

“Where multiple counts are closely connected, or similar in point of time, nature, seriousness, or otherwise, it is a useful way of ensuring that the punishment imposed is not unnecessarily disputed, or its cumulative effect not too harsh on the accused. Nevertheless, the practice is undesirable and should only be adopted by lower courts in exceptional case –see S v Young 1977 (1) SA 602 (A); S v Van Zyl 1974 (1) SA 113 (T); and S v Van de Mewve 1974 (4) SA 523 (N).”

In Zimbabwe, our courts have made this principle quite clear as stated in Chirwa v S HH79-94 and Sifuya v S HH77-02.

Review Judgment

 

 

CHEDA J:             This is a review judgment.  Accused was charged with 6 counts of rape to which charge he pleaded guilty, was convicted and sentenced to a total of 60 years imprisonment of rape.

The conviction is proper, but, it is the sentence which is a cause for concern.

The offence committed by the accused is no doubt abhorrent, and is therefore serious.  The learned trial magistrate used a mathematical formula in arriving at what he perceived to be a suitable sentence.  The individual sentences are not excessive, but, taken cumulating they are – see S v Hassin 1976 (2) PH H58 (N).  No doubt a trial magistrate has a wide discretion, which, however, if exercised judiciously, the appeal or review court will not interfere, see S v Coetzee 1970(4) SA (RA).  In S v Davious Nyathi HB 60/03 at p2 (cyclostyled judgment) NDOU J ablely stated:

“Where multiple counts are closely connected or similar in point of time, nature seriousness or otherwise, it is a useful way of ensuring that the punishment imposed is not unnecessarily disputed or its cumulative effect not too harsh on the accused.  Nevertheless the practice is undesirable and should only be adopted by lower courts in exceptional case- see S v Young 1977 (1) SA 602(A), S v Vanzyl 1974 (1) SA 113 (T) and S v Van der Mewve  1974 (4) SA 523 (N).”

 

          In Zimbabwe, our courts have made this principle quite clear as stated in Chirwa v S HH 79/94 and Sifuya v S HH 77/02.

          The cumulative effect of the sentence is disturbingly shocking and inappropriate as it is excessive in the circumstances.  For that reason justice demands that it be interfered with.

 

 

          Accordingly, the sentence in this matter is set aside and is substituted by the following:

“Count 1 to 2 -             10 years imprisonment

Count 3 to 4     -        10 years imprisonment

Count 5 to 6     -        10 years imprisonment

 

Total 30 years imprisonment

 

Of the total of 30 years 5 years imprisonment is suspended for 5 years on condition accused does not during that period commit any offence of which sexual intercourse is an element.

         

Effective- 25 years imprisonment.”

 

 

 

Cheda J…………………………………………..

 

 

Ndou J agrees…………………………………..
Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top