Facts
After being convicted of robbery with violence the appellants were sentenced by the trial court under the Minimum Sentences Act, 1972. On appeal they argued that they were juveniles and as such ought not to have been sentenced under the Minimum Sentences Act, 1972. The appeal court considered the propriety of the sentence in light of the age of the appellants. A medical report had said that all the appellants were adults. The appellant's challenged the assessment of their ages by the medical doctor. Their parents submitted, inter alia, baptismal certificates to enable the court assess the ages of the appellants.
Held (i) Evidence of a parent is better than that of a medical doctor as regards that parent's child's age.
(ii) Where age cannot be assessed accurately the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
(iii) In this case the appellants are given the benefit of doubt.
Case Infomation
Appeal allowed in part.
No comments:
Post a Comment