R v Maine and Another (CRI/REV 601 of 88) [1989] LSCA 54 (12 May 1989)

CRI/REV/601/88 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO In the matter between: REX v MAKOENEHELO MAINE NTHABELENG MOLOLO Before the Honourable the Chief Justice Mr. Justice B. P. Cullinan on the 12th day of May, 1989. For the Crown : Mr. G. S. M d h l u l i, Director of Public Prosecutions JUDGMENT The two female accused persons were convicted of common theft by the Subordinate Court for the Mafeteng District. One witness gave evidence for the Crown, that is, the complainant. She testified that she departed from her house, leaving her 18-year-old sister-in-law, the first accused, in the house, where she (the complainant) had secreted M 6 0 0, the whereabouts of which was known to the first accused. On her return she found that the first - 2- a c c u s ed had l e ft t he h o u se and t he M 6 00 had d i s a p p e a r e d. S u b s e q u e n t ly she m et t he f i r st a c c u s e d. The l a t t er m a de s o me e x p l a n a t i on to h e r, and h a n d ed o v er M 70 and a p a ir of s h o e s. T he f i r st a c c u s ed led t he c o m p l a i n a n t, a c c o m p a n i ed by t he C h i e f , to t he h o u se of t he s e c o nd a c c u s e d. T he l a t t er had a p p a r e n t ly r e c e n t ly p u r c h a s ed s o me h o u s e h o ld g o o ds and c l o t h i n g. T h at w as t he o n ly e v i d e n ce a g a i n st e i t h er a c c u s e d, b o th of w h om r e m a i n ed s i l e nt in t h e ir d e f e n c e. T he D i r e c t or of P u b l ic P r o s e c u t i o ns M r. M d h l u li v e ry p r o p e r ly s u b m i ts t h at t h e re w as no c a se w h a t e v er a g a i n st t he s e c o nd a c c u s e d. I e n t i r e ly a g r e e. As to t he f i r st a c c u s e d, m r. M d h l u li s u b m i ts t h at an inference of g u i lt c o u ld c e r t a i n ly be d r a w n, but t h at on t he e v i d e n ce b e f o re t he C o u rt t h at w as n ot t he o n ly r e a s o n a b le i n f e r e n c e. I a g a in a g r e e. As I see i t, a p r i ma f a c ie c a se w as not e s t a b l i s h ed by t he p r o s e c u t i on a g a i n st e i t h er a c c u s ed and t h ey s h o u ld n ot h a ve b e en p ut on t h e ir d e f e n c e. - 3- In p a s s i ng I o b s e r ve t h at the l e a r n ed trial M a g i s t r a te i m p o s ed a s e n t e n ce of four y e a r s' i m p r i s o n m e nt on each a c c u s e d. The s e n t e n ce c o m es to me with a sense of shock as being m a n i f e s t ly e x c e s s i v e. Both a c c u s ed p e r s o ns w e re f i r st o f f e n d e r s. They w e re aged but 18 and 20 y e a rs r e s p e c t i v e l y. F u r t h e r, the f i r st a c c u s ed was r e c o r d ed on the c h a r ge sheet as being aged " a b o u t" 18 y e a r s. As I see i t, the learned trial M a g i s t r a te should h a ve been put on e n q u i ry as to the age of the f i r st a c c u s e d, p a r t i c u l a r ly w h e re she c o n t e m p l a t ed i m p o s i ng a s e n t e n ce of i m p r i s o n m e n t, as of c o u r se u n d er the p r o v i s i o ns of s e c t i on 2 6 ( 1) of the C h i l d r e n 's P r o t e c t i on A c t, 1 9 8 0, no c h i ld may be p u n i s h ed by i m p r i s o n m e n t. I need not e n q u i re into the v a l i d i ty of the s e n t e n ce i m p o s ed on the f i r st a c c u s ed in v i ew of the u n c e r t a i n ty as to her a g e. I say no m o re than t h at it was in the c i r c u m s t a n c es e n c u m b e nt upon the learned t r i al M a g i s t r a te to c o n d u ct an e n q u i ry and m a ke a d e t e r m i n a t i on as to such a g e. In any e v e n t, for the r e a s o ns a l r e a dy s t a t e d, - 4- there being i n s u f f i c i e nt e v i d e n ce against either a c c u s e d, the c o n v i c t i o ns and s e n t e n c es imposed by the Court below are set aside and both accused p e r s o ns are a c q u i t t e d. D e l i v e r ed at M a s e ru on the 12th Day of M a y, 1 9 8 9. (B. P. C U L L I N A N) CHIEF J U S T I CE