R v Ranyali (CRI/S 15 of 88) [1989] LSCA 47 (28 April 1989)

C R I / S / 1 5 / 88 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In t he m a t t er o f: R EX v BOTA RANYALI Before the Honourable the Chief Justice M r. Justice B. P. Cullinan on the 28th day of A p r i l, 1989 For the Crown : M r. S. Sakoane Crown Counsel For the Accused : in Person J U D G M E NT The accused was convicted by the Subordinate Court of the First Class for the Maseru District of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl aged less than sixteen years ("defilement") contrary to section 3(1) of the Women and Girls Protection Proclamation 14 of 1949. The accused pleaded g u i l t y. He agreed with a statement of facts which disclosed a clear prima facie case. The conviction is accordingly c o n f i r m e d. The trial took place on the 7th June 1988, that is, before the learned trial Magistrate's jurisdiction was increased under the Subordinate Courts Order 1988. At the time her jurisdiction in the matter of punishment was that of two years's imprisonment. Under the circumstances - 2- t he learned trial M a g i s t r a te c o m m i t t ed t he a c c u s ed to the High C o u rt for s e n t e n ce s t a t i ng full r e a s o ns for d o i ng s o. The m a x i m um s e n t e n ce for d e f i l e m e nt is six y e a r s' i m p r i s o n m e n t. The g i r l, aged f o u r t e e n, did not a p p a r e n t ly o b j e ct to i n t e r c o u r s e. Indeed she a c c e p t ed some m o n ey from t he a c c u s ed t h e r e a f t e r. No d o u bt t h at is why d e f i l e m e nt instead of rape w as c h a r g e d. M e d i c al e x a m i n a t i on did not reveal any i n j u r y. The a c c u s ed is a f i r st o f f e n d e r. He p l e a d ed g u i l ty and c o o p e r a t ed w i th the P o l i c e. In p a r t i c u l ar he is now aged a b o ut s i x t y - e i g ht y e a r s. He has been in p r i s on s i n ce the 7th of June 1988 w h i c h, w i th r e m i s s i o n, e q u a t es to a s e n t e n ce of n e a r ly s i x t e en m o n t h s' i m p r i s o n m e n t. In view of t he a c c u s e d 's a d v a n c ed a g e, in p a r t i c u l a r, I c o n s i d er that he should not s e r ve any f u r t h er p u n i s h m e n t. Under the c i r c u m s t a n c es I i m p o se a p u n i s h m e nt of one y e a r 's i m p r i s o n m e n t, but o r d er t h at t he o p e r a t i on t h e r e of be s u s p e n d ed for a period of one y e a r , on c o n d i t i on that the a c c u s ed do not c o m m it any s e x u al o f f e n ce d u r i ng t h at p e r i o d. D e l i v e r ed at M a s e ru This 28th Day of A p r i l, 1 9 8 9. (B. P. C U L L I N A N) CHIEF J U S T I CE