DANIEL MTUNZE v. R (1968) HCD 321
Held:
Court may not impose a sentence of corporal punishment upon an accused who claims exemption by reason of age without first obtaining the findings of a medical examination.
The sentences on the two counts here were incorrectly made to run consecutively. As they arose out of the same transaction, they should be concurrent.
Original conviction quashed and sentence passed thereon set aside; conviction on nine separate counts of each offence originally charged substituted, and concurrent sentences of 6 months’ imprisonment imposed.
Held:
Court may not impose a sentence of corporal punishment upon an accused who claims exemption by reason of age without first obtaining the findings of a medical examination.
The sentences on the two counts here were incorrectly made to run consecutively. As they arose out of the same transaction, they should be concurrent.
Original conviction quashed and sentence passed thereon set aside; conviction on nine separate counts of each offence originally charged substituted, and concurrent sentences of 6 months’ imprisonment imposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment