Supreme Court
Appeal No. 7 of 1981
2nd October, 1981.
Alcantara, J.

Mr. Denys Barrow, for the Appellant
Mr. G. C. Gandhi, for the Respondent

Inferior Court Appeal against sentence - Resident Magistrate imposing an excessively harsh sentence - Fine can act as a deterrent based on circumstances of Appellant - Court substituting a fine in the place of a term of imprisonment imposed by the lower court

J U D G M E N T

This was originally an appeal against conviction and sentence. In Court, Counsel for the Appellant said that his client only wished to appeal against sentence as she accepted that she was properly convicted.

The Appellant was on the 10th day of May, 1981 convicted that she intentionally and unlawfully caused harm to Sonia Augustus. She was sentenced to prison for nine months with hard labour. She was also bound to keep the peace for two years in the sum of $200. In his reasons for sentence, the Learned Magistrate had this to say: -

"I imposed a custodial sentence of 9 months with hard labour upon the Defendant for the following reasons: -

(a) I consider that the circumstances under which the blow was delivered were aggravated by the fact that the defendant and her sister actually went around to Mrs. Augustus' house in the early morning of Sunday, 10th May, 1981 to look for Mr. Augustus, in pursuance of a love affair. In the ensuing quarrel, Mrs. Augustus was injured.

(b) The defendant admitted two previous convictions both for causing grevious harm. It is obvious she has a penchant for violence, which imposition of a fine does nothing to curb. If allowed to go unchecked, she is liable to cause serious injury.

(c) S. 49 (4) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Ordinance as amended by Ordinance 8 of 1970, empowers the court to impose a maximum sentence of imprisonment of twelve months for the crime of harm. A sentence of 9 months is not excessive."

After hearing Counsel on both sides, I came to the conclusion that nine months imprisonment was unduly severe. Even Counsel for the Respondent agreed to this although he advocated a custodial sentence. Having decided to alter the sentence I decided on a sentence that would achieve the objects set out in the learned Magistrate's decision. A sentence commensurate with the facts of the case and one which would act as a deterrent for the future. Taking into account the Appellant's means, a fine of $300 should have the desired effect.

I would like to say that whenever possible I like to uphold the sentencing policy of the Inferior Courts as they are in the forefront of the war against crime. In this case the actual sentence had to be disturbed. At the expense of erring on the side of leniency I opted for a substantial fine.

Appeal against sentence allowed and a fine of $300 payable on or before the 23rd October, 1981 or in default four months in prison substituted for the sentence of nine months imprisonment imposed by the Inferior Court.

----------OO----------