The Court of Appeal has found a sentence of 36 years imprisonment for the offence of aggravated defilement manifestly harsh and excessive to constitute a miscarriage of justice if handed down to an accused person.
This was in the recently decided case of Munubi Charles v Uganda, in which the High Court sentenced the appellant to 36 years imprisonment for the aggravated defilement—contrary to Sections 129(3) and 4(a) of the Penal Code — of a victim under the age of 12 as she returned from fetching water.
Under that provision of the law, a person convicted of the offence of aggravated defilement is upon conviction, liable to suffer death.
However, upon considering similar cases to the instant case, the Court of Appeal, in its decision handed down on 16 October 2024, found that, under the principle of parity and consistency in sentencing, the sentence of 36 years imprisonment for aggravated defilement is harsh and excessive.
In this regard, the apex Court bench comprised of Justices; Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Muzamiru Mutangula Kibeedi, and Margaret Tibulya, JJA considered precedents such as Ninsiima v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.180 of 2010) where the Court of Appeal set aside a sentence of 30 years imprisonment and replaced it with a sentence of 15 years imprisonment, Kwezira Jonan v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2014) where a sentence of 21 years imprisonment for aggravated defilement was reduced to 18 years and Rurema Deogratius v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2011) where the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 22 years imprisonment for aggravated defilement.
“In the instant case, the Appellant was a first offender, aged 28 years, a family man with a wife and 2 children in Kenya and a total orphan. He is a relatively young man who can be easily rehabilitated which cannot be done with a very long custodial sentence. The victim is 12 years old which calls for a deterrent sentence. With regard to consistency and parity in sentencing, we find that the sentence of 36 years imprisonment is harsh and excessive and therefore this court can lawfully interfere with it and set it aside.” The Court of Appeal stated.
Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant’s sentence of 36 years imprisonment to 20 years imprisonment under Section 11 of the Judicature Act.
“Given the range of sentences given in the above-quoted cases, a sentence of 20 years imprisonment would be appropriate in the circumstances. From this must be deducted the period of 4 years the Appellant spent on remand. Therefore, a sentence of 16 years imprisonment would meet the ends of [Justice] effective from 22nd September 2016, the date of conviction.” The Court of Appeal.
The decision of the Court of Appeal in this case is similar to the one in Rwakibale Patrick v Uganda delivered on the same day where the Court of Appeal set aside a sentence of 32 years imprisonment and replaced it with a sentence of 20 years imprisonment also on the ground of the former sentence being harsh and excessive.
The Appellant was convicted of aggravated defilement of a 3-year-old child.
A perusal of the authorities the Court of Appeal considered in both cases suggests the sentencing range of aggravated defilement to be seemingly capped at 25 years imprisonment, of course depending on the circumstances of each case.
Benjamin Ahikiiriza is a legal writer and publisher of the Legal Reports Digital Media.