REGINA v CHITENGU 1980 ZLR 84 (G)
REGINA v CHITENGU 1980 ZLR 84 (G)
1980 ZLR p84
|
|
|
|
Citation |
1980 ZLR 84 (G) |
|
Case No |
No details
supplied |
|
Court |
General
Division, Salisbury |
|
Judge |
Smith, J |
|
Heard |
5th March, 1980 |
|
Judgment |
5th March, 1980 |
|
Counsel |
Details
not supplied |
|
Case Type |
Criminal
Review |
|
Annotations
|
No case annotations to date |
Flynote
Sentence — suspended
sentence — date from which period of suspension begins. G
Headnote
A suspended sentence cannot be brought
into operation as a result of an offence committed by the convicted person
while he was serving any effective period of imprisonment imposed upon him at
the same time as the suspended sentence.
Case cited
R v John, 1968 (2) RLR 28 (AD). H
Judgment
Smith J: The accused, who was serving
a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with labour of which one year had been
suspended on condition, inter alia, that he was not convicted of an offence
involving
1980
ZLR p85
Smith J assault, was convicted in the magistrates Court of
escaping from custody and of assault. The assault occurred while the accused
was fleeing from a a. warder in that the accused threw a stone at the warder,
striking him on A the hand. The magistrate treated both counts as
one for the purpose of sentence and sentenced the accused to 12 months’
imprisonment with labour and also brought into operation the suspended sentence
of one year. That suspended sentence had been imposed by the General Division B
of the High Court.
As he subsequently realized, the magistrate overlooked the fact that it
was not competent for him to bring into operation a suspended sentence imposed
by the General Division. See section 60 of the Magistrates Court C
Act [Chapter 18] and section 337 (2a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence
Act [Chapter 59].
In any event, it would not be competent for the General
Division to bring this suspended sentence into effect because the period during
which D a sentence is suspended only commences to run after the
accused has served any period of imprisonment which was imposed upon him at the
time. See R v John, 1968 (2) RLR 28 (AD) and cases there cited.
Accordingly, the convictions and the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment E
with labour imposed by the magistrate in respect of those convictions are
confirmed. The order bringing into effect the suspended sentence of one year
imposed by the High Court on the 30th March, 1979, is set aside. Waddington J:
agrees. F
