The court found that although the applicant was a repeat offender, the circumstances of the offence—namely, the theft being motivated by hunger, the return of the stolen bananas, and the applicant's personal situation—warranted a more lenient approach. The trial court failed to consider non-custodial alternatives and did not seek a probation officer's report, contrary to the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines. The High Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction, holding that restorative justice and rehabilitation would be better served by a community service order rather than continued imprisonment. The sentence of three years' imprisonment was set aside and substituted with a one-year Community Service Order under probation supervision.