…
Before I comment, I hope your legal skills are better than your story telling. The concluding paragraph is ambiguous. Let me get the story straight first. So the magistrate gave him 15 years, some years ago, presumably because a giggle annoyed the magistrate. Then a few months ago he came back to court, presumably before a different magistrate (or was it the same one?) and the 15 year sentence was upheld because of a grin?
he was sentenced last week. All this time he was in remand. Court rejected the newly issued birth certificate and the boy was sent to hospital. Later on a doctor testified. It was his opinion that the boy was around 24.
Ah okay, so he was actually convicted and the conviction upheld on the strength of evidence, and not on the whims of an emotional judge.
Yeah. But the bit about the accused giggling was included in the judgement. “seemingly not remorseful.”
He had no legal representation. No lawyer to coach him.
But ulisema he should have gotten a slap on the wrist. Why? He broke the law. The prosecution proved their case. The judge can’t give a slap on the wrist. He is bound to rule within the prescribed sentence. I doubt if the minimum for statutory rape can be what you prescribed.
Shida mi huona na hizi cases ni mtu akiwekelewa.
I was talking about an ideal world.
In the world we live in, in a case ya 16-year-old and a 19-year-old, if it was consensual and you’re the magistrate, it’s better to just not convict.
If its between a 40-year-old and a 5-year-old girl, you sentence the man to life imprisonment (and yes, I’ve seen it happen. A magistrates court (read: magistrate) has the jurisdiction to sentence someone to life imprisonment)