R v Fitisi (Review Case 8 of 2011) [2011] LSHC 113 (21 February 2011)

IN THE HIGH COUR T OF LE S OTHO In t h e m a t t er b et ween : R E X Vs THABIS I F ITIS I Review Ca s e No. 8 / 2 0 1 1 / 2 0 1 1 Review Or d er No. CR 7 0 / 2 0 1 0 Th a b a Ts ek a Dis t r ict OR DE R ON R E VIE W Th is m a tter fr om th e Th a b a Ts ek a Ma gis tr a te’s Cou rt is b efore m e on a u tom a tic review. Th e a ccu s ed a p p ea red b efore a m a gis tr a te with s econ d cla s s p owers ch a rged with con tr a ven in g Section 8 (1 ) of th e Sexu a l Offen ces Act No.3 of 2 0 0 3 . It b ein g a lleged th a t on or a b ou t 6 t h Ma r ch 2 0 0 9 a t Ha Ra n th oto, in th e Th a b a Ts ek a d is t r ict th e a ccu s ed , a ged 1 9 yea r s , u n la wfu lly h a d s exu a l in ter cou rs e with th e com p la in a n t, Molelek en g Hla b a n g, a gir l a ged 1 5 yea rs a t th e tim e. Th e a ccu s ed p lea d ed n ot gu ilty; b u t wa s a t th e en d of th e tr ia l fu n d gu ilty a n d s en ten ce to s ix yea rs im p r is on m e n t with ou t th e op tion of a fin e. He rep res en ted h im s elf a t th e tr ia l. PW1 wa s th e com p la in a n t Molelek en g Hla b a n g, wh o tes tified th a t s h e wa s b or n on 1 6 t h Ap r il 1 9 9 3 . S h e h a d a tten d ed s ch ool u p to s ta n d a r d s even a t Ra n th oto Pr im a ry Sch ool. Sh e k n ew th e a ccu s ed a n d h a s s een h er s ever a l tim es in h er villa ge. S h e tes tified th a t on th e 6 t h Ma r ch 2 0 0 9 , s h e wa s on h er wa y fr om th e villa ge of Mots its en g goin g to h er h om e. It wa s a rou n d 1 3 h r s , a n d in b rou gh t d a y ligh t. S h e wa s con fr on ted b y a ccu s ed in a d es er ted a re wh en p a s s in g th r ou gh a field . Accu s ed gr a b b ed h er a n d d r a gged h er a s id e fr om h er p a th wa y in to th e veld a n d h a d s exu a l in ter cou r s e with h er a ga in s t h er will. S h e wen t h om e a n d rep or ted th e in cid en t to h er p a ren ts . A rep or t wa s m a d e to th e ch ief a n d th en th e p olice a n d a ccu s ed wa s a r res ted . Pw2 a n d Pw3 b ein g th e m oth er a n d fa th er of th e com p la in a n t b oth ga ve evid en ce a n d con fir m ed h er s tory. Pw3 wa s th e on e wh o took a ccu s ed to th e p olice s ta tion a fter rep ortin g to th e ch ief. Th e witn es s wa s cr os s exa m in ed b y a ccu s ed wh o s ou gh t to d en y h a vin g com m itted th e cr im e a n d r a is ed th e d efen ce of a lib i. It wa s a t th e en d of th e tr ia l rejected b y th e cou r t. Pw4 wa s th e p olice officer No. 8 8 4 6 p olice wom a n Ntoi wh o tes tified th a t wh en a ccu s ed wa s b r ou gh t t o th e ch a r ge office s h e fou n d h is exp la n a tion to b e u n s a tis fa ctory a n d a ccord in gly la id ch a rge a ga in s t h im . Accu s ed h a d n o qu es tion s to h is witn es s a n d fu r th er a ccep ted th e m ed ica l rep ort wh ich wa s h a n d ed in . He in d ica ted th a t h e wou ld h a ve n o qu es tion s to th e d octor a n d th e rep or t h a d h a n d ed in a s exh ib it “A”. Accu s ed ga ve evid en ce in h is own d efen ce a n d s a id h e wa s a t th e ca ttle p os t a t th e tim e. He h owever cou ld n ot s p ecify th e d a tes to con d u ce th e cou r t of th e a p p lica b ility of h is a lib i, b ein g a n illiter a te p ers on . He fu r th er a d m itted th a t h e is k n own to com p la in a n t a n d h a d m et h er n u m b er of tim es . Th e cou r t a t th e con clu s ion of th e tr ia l, in a well rea s on ed ju d gm en t rejected a ccu s ed ’s d efen ce a n d con victed h im on th e b a s is th a t: 1 . It h a d b een p r oved th a t th e victim wa s a ch ild u n d er 1 6 yea rs . 2 . Th e a ccu s ed ’s d efen ce of a lib i wa s u n tr u e a n d fa iled . Th e ca s e h a d n o p os s ib ility of m is ta k en id en tity on th e evid en ce. 3 . Th e tes tim on y of th e crown witn es s wa s cred ib le a n d s a tis fa ctory; with a ccu r a te n a r r a tion , wh ile a ccu s ed ’s d efen ce wa s a fa b r ica tion a n d h a d to b e rejected . In th e res u lt, th e cou r t, cor rectly in a n y view, r etu r n ed a verd ict of gu ilty a s ch a r ged . Th e a ccu s ed h a d n o p reviou s con viction s . In m itiga tion h e p lea s ed th a t h e wa s th e b rea d win n er a t h is h om e, h e wa s wor r ied with on e ch ild a n d fou r s ib lin gs a n d a ll of th em in clu d in g h is wife were u n em p loyed . Th e Cou r t th en s en ten ced h im to s ix yea r s with ou t th e op tion of a five a fter givin g on e con s id er a tion to a ll th e releva n t fa ctor s . My im p res s ion is th a t th e lea r n ed m a gis tr a te a d op ted a p r op er a p p r oa ch to b oth con viction a n d s en ten ce a n d I a ccor d in gly con fir m b oth to b e in a ccor d a n ce with rea l a n d s u b s ta n tia l ju s tice. It is s o or d ered on review. _______________ L. A. MOLE TE ACTING J UDGE 2 1 s t Feb r u a r y 2 0 1 1 CC: All Ch ief Ma gis tr a tes All Ma gis tr a tes Ma gis tr a te Th a b a Ts ek a All Pu b lic Pr os ecu tor s O/ C Police Th a b a Ts ek a O/ C Pr is on Th a b a Ts ek a CID – Th a b a Ts ek a Director of Pu b lic Pr os ecu tion s