Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro-Chief Court Reporter
The Judiciary has called upon the legislature to urgently expand the sentencing jurisdiction of regional magistrates, enabling them to impose penalties that reflect the gravity of the offences they preside over.
This call comes against the backdrop of new sentencing guidelines which prescribe a presumptive penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment for robbery committed under aggravating circumstances.
However, the sentencing powers of regional magistrates remain capped at a mere 12 years, a limitation that undermines their ability to deliver justice in serious and complex criminal cases.
This legislative gap was starkly highlighted in the High Court case of Israel Mufure (22) and Charles Murinda (55) — two armed robbers who unleashed terror on a primary school in Norton, robbing teachers with brazen aggression using a pellet gun to instil fear.
The duo was convicted of five counts of robbery and one count of unlawful entry, receiving a consolidated 10-year sentence for the robberies and an additional 10 years for unlawful entry.
However, Justice Esther Muremba and Deputy Judge President Garainesu Mawadze, expressed profound concern over the inadequacy of the sentence, viewing it as incompatible with the severity of the crimes committed.
Justice Muremba, writing for the court, underscored the troubling disparity between the presumptive penalty of 20 years for robbery under aggravating circumstances and the regional magistrates’ jurisdictional limit of 12 years.
She characterised the imposed sentence as “unduly lenient,” particularly given the egregious nature of the offences.
The judge further noted that the sentencing magistrate failed to fully appreciate or apply the new sentencing framework, raising questions about whether the magistrate’s approach aligned with the legislative intent of the presumptive guidelines.
“When I queried the learned regional magistrate about the 10-year sentence for five counts of robbery committed under aggravating circumstances, given the presumptive penalty of 20 years for one count, she replied that her jurisdiction in robbery cases is limited to 12 years under section 51(3) of the Magistrates Court Act [Chapter 7:10],” Justice Muremba remarked.
Yet, the magistrate did not expound on how this limitation influenced her sentencing decision or reconcile the discrepancy between the higher presumptive penalty and her imposed sentence.
Justice Muremba said that the magistrate should have explicitly acknowledged this jurisdictional limitation in her judgment and provided a reasoned explanation for her approach in light of the sentencing guidelines.
The court expressed dismay at the apparent misconception that the magistrate’s maximum sentencing jurisdiction equates to the normal sentencing range for such offences.
Justice Muremba cautioned that this view risks creating a disconnect between the sentencing framework and the realities of the crimes magistrates frequently adjudicate.
She remarked, “While adhering to jurisdictional limits is necessary, this view may indicate a disconnect from the sentencing guidelines, which suggest a presumptive penalty of 20 years. It appears the learned regional magistrate has not fully embraced or given due weight to the new sentencing framework.”
The judges also stressed that regional magistrates often handle robbery cases involving aggravating circumstances, making it imperative to enhance their sentencing powers.
“Expanding the sentencing jurisdiction of regional magistrates is crucial to ensuring that penalties adequately reflect the severity of offences. This would not only enhance judicial efficiency but also strengthen the public’s trust in the justice system,” Justice Muremba stated.
The current requirement to refer cases involving sentences beyond the magistrates’ jurisdiction to the High Court was described as cumbersome and counterproductive.
Justice Muremba highlighted the delays and inefficiencies caused by this process, which often prolongs the resolution of cases and hampers the delivery of justice.
She argued that empowering magistrates to impose higher sentences would streamline the judicial process, reduce backlogs, and ensure that justice is served both swiftly and effectively.
The judges called for legislative intervention to amend the Magistrates Court Act [Chapter 7:10], aligning magistrates’ sentencing jurisdiction with the presumptive penalties prescribed by the guidelines.
They said that such a move would foster consistency and uniformity in sentencing, a cornerstone of a fair and credible judicial system.
