R v Chitipula (Revision Case 3 of 1994) [1994] MWHCCrim 3 (27 October 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY REVISION CASE NO. 3 OF 1994 THE REPUBLIC - versus - EDSON CHITIPULA the Principal Residence Magistrate Court In Criminal Case No. 74 of 1994 at Nkhotakota CORAM: Chimasula Phiri, Ag. J. Mwenelupembe, Ag. Chief State Advocate for the State Mthukane, Official Interpreter Namangwiyo, Recording Officer ORDER IN CONFIRMATION in the Principal Resident The accused person was convicted theft of a a charge of Magistrate's Court at Nkhotakota on bicycle contrary to section 278 as read with section 282 (h) of Initially he pleaded guilty and was convicted on the Penal Code. his own plea. On The Case was resumption that when he first in Court he was frightened hence his initial plea but appeared that he wanted to change his p 1 ea to that of not gu i 1 ty. The -eourt entered-·-a--plea -of not guilty. The prosecution called four witnesses while the accused was the only witness for his defence 18 months evidence. imprisonment with hard labour. then adjourned for sentence. the accused adviced the court convicted sentenced He was and to the conviction. The Ag. Chief State Advocate the State the supports bicycle was restored to its owner and that the accused was a young first offender. The accused person also pleaded for mercy. He and other dependants whose a livelihood has been disrupted due to his imprisonment. that he has sentence he submitted submitted family stated that that On It has often been stated that family obligations are not a The accused person ought to have persuasive mitigating factor. on his thought of his his dangero us to responsibility? this mitigating factor. the I consider bicycle to the owner a persuasive mitigating factor although it was through the untiring efforts of our police force. family obligations before embarking point I would equally attach very little weight the restoration of At what It would realise course. does he I if am of reduced the sentence this view because really have greatly the accused had voluntarily surrendered the bicycle to the owner without police I would consider intervention. voluntary surrender to be genuine contrition. I note that the accused initially pleaded guilty but later changed to a plea of not guilty. Technically, if he had maintained his plea of guilty I would have reduced the sentence to 15 or 12 months imprisonment with hard labour following the guidelines - Misoya 7MLR 201. A plea of guilty is a strong mitigating factor. He was convicted after a full trial therefore I would sentence him the to conviction and imprisonment with hard labour cannot be faulted. the appropriate sentence without any sentence of 18 months I confirm the same. in Rep. - Vs reduction. Thus PRONOUNCED Blantyre. in open Court this 27th day of October, 1994 at GM Chimasula Phiri AG. JUDGE