The convicts, Assan Jarra and Buba Daffeh, were charged with two counts: housebreaking and burglary, and stealing, contrary to Sections 281(2) and 252, respectively, of the Criminal Code, Laws of The Gambia.
Both pleaded guilty to the charges at the Magistrates’ Court and were convicted accordingly.
Dissatisfied with their sentence, the convicts filed a petition of appeal on 24 September 2024 against the judgment and, in particular, the sentence delivered by the Bundung Magistrates’ Court on 27 August 2024.
The convicts argued that the two-year imprisonment imposed by the trial magistrate was severe and excessive, considering the circumstances of the case. They also appealed for leniency and a reduction of the sentence.
It was recalled that on 22 July 2024, at Sukuta Nema, the convicts broke into the house of Abdoulie Samateh and stole two Samsung tablets valued at D10,000, a Spark 10 mobile phone valued at D7,000, a smartwatch valued at D10,000, a cash amount of D5,000, and two trousers valued at D700.
Mr. J.O. Okete, Principal State Counsel for the State, referred the High Court to Section 272 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the sentence imposed on the convicts was neither excessive nor inconsistent with the sentencing framework under which they were charged and convicted.
In their individual appeals before Justice Omar Cham, the convicts submitted that they had pleaded guilty to the charges at the first instance, were convicted the same day, and did not waste the court’s time or resources. They emphasised that they were first-time offenders with no criminal history, the primary breadwinners of their families, and were remorseful and regretful of their actions. Additionally, they noted that they were young individuals.
Justice Cham referred to Section 281(1) (2) of the Criminal Code, which states:
“A person who breaks and enters a building, tent, or vessel used as a human dwelling with intent to commit a felony, or having entered with such intent, commits a felony therein and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term of seven years. If the offence is committed at night, it is termed as burglary, and the offender is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term of 10 years.”
In his verdict, the judge emphasised the gravity of the offences and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the court below.
“The court below exercised sufficient discretion in arriving at the sentence imposed,” Justice Cham noted. He explained that the trial court had sentenced the convicts to two years for both counts, even though each count could have attracted a higher penalty.
The punishment for housebreaking and burglary under Count 1 is up to 10 years, while the punishment for stealing under Count 2 is up to five years.
Justice Cham concluded that he saw no reason to interfere with the lower court’s decision.
“Accordingly, both appeals fail, and each is dismissed,” Justice Cham declared.
