| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11712 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Sep 2010 : 08:24:51
|
Foroyaa Editorial : Justice Delayed Indeed amounts to Justice Denied Remanded for 6 Months and Sentenced to 6 months Imprisonment
By Publisher on 08-09-10
We have noticed that a number of accused persons sent to the remand wing of the central prisons are spending months and even years in detention only to be sentenced again to prison sentences without the time served in detention having any mitigating effect on their sentences to imprisonment.
Jurisprudence teaches that justice delayed is justice denied. Foroyaa is seeing the practical meaning of this golden rule of jurisprudence. In short, it is an accepted principle of justice that an accused person is innocent until proven or pleads guilty. This means that the liberty of the person should only be restrained if he is a risk to others or is likely to tamper with the process of justice or to repeat the offence. In this respect the onus of proving why the liberty of a relatively innocent person should be restrained should lie with the prosecution. This is the only way presumption of innocence could have any relevance. Otherwise it is empty words on paper.
It goes without saying that if there is genuine cause to remand an accused person in custody; his or her trial should be speeded up so that his or her innocence or guilt could be determined.
The facts on the ground reveal cases where a person is detained for years as a remanded prisoner only to be found innocent and discharged. Justice demands that such people are returned to their previous jobs and be paid for the time they were held under custody. In cases where the person is found guilty and given a custodial sentence the amount of time kept under detention should be considered as a mitigating factor in handing down sentences.
In our view, it would constitute a miscarriage of justice to remand a person in custody for more than 6 months only to sentence him or her to custodial sentence of 6 months. Delay in granting justice would under such circumstances amount to denial of justice.
Source: Foroyaa Online
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
toubab1020
12309 Posts |
Posted - 09 Sep 2010 : 15:11:13
|
| It's blatently unfair,but Africa is Africa,Gambia is Gambia. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
 |
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2010 : 14:33:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
It's blatently unfair,but Africa is Africa,Gambia is Gambia.
It might be that the magistrate was going to deliver a sentence of one year imprisonment but for the fact that the accused had already spent half of that in custody. There might be something missing in the reporting. You never know. It is Foroyaa Newspaper. So maybe a bit of caution would be wised to exercise.
Regards |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
Sister Omega
United Kingdom
2085 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2010 : 17:16:42
|
Nyari I agree with you something seems to missing in that report sfter all 6+6=12.
Peace
Sister Omega |
Peace
Sister Omega |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2010 : 18:25:40
|
Indeed sister O. 6+6=12. I think when it comes to reporting facts, Foroyaa is reasonably good in that but when they bring in their analysis then you have to be cautious because they could be manipulative and sometimes blatantly deceitful.
Regards
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12309 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2010 : 18:57:24
|
OK lets put it like this if it is established that the remand time of 6 months isn't taken into account and the defendant is still in custody then In order to solve this "misunderstanding", if there is one,the court transcript should be read (if there is one ) by the defence lawyer and the matter raised with the court who sentenced the accused.
This is Gambian law cannot comment further perhaps Kay can explain the Gambian law on this point,as the "law" (In all countries) often does not take into consideration the common sense view.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2010 : 19:13:35
|
It would still have to depend on whether or not the magistrate had exceeded his/her sentencing powers or whether or not he/she had excercised a fettered discretion in the sentencing process to the extend that the sentence becomes not only unfair but also unreasonable. This Foroyaa analysis doesn't give us any clue on that. So yes, Sister Omega is right; something is missing here.
Regards |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 11 Sep 2010 19:17:51 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12309 Posts |
Posted - 11 Sep 2010 : 20:18:21
|
I understood the article to be about REMAND time i.e. time spent in custody and not recognised as time SERVED in custody after the accused was found guilty and sentenced,it has often been a way of getting additional privileges by defendants who know that they will probably be found guilty or they intend to plead guilty at court,as REMAND time is better than time served by a convicted prisoner,being in mind that everyone (In the UK at least ) is presumed innocent until he is found guilty or pleads guilty.
What the article does state is "In our view, it would constitute a miscarriage of justice to remand a person in custody for more than 6 months only to sentence him or her to custodial sentence of 6 months. Delay in granting justice would under such circumstances amount to denial of justice."
I understand the stance that Nyarikangbanna is taking. My understanding of the article was to raise the subject outlined in the following quote:
"We have noticed that a number of accused persons sent to the remand wing of the central prisons are spending months and even years in detention only to be sentenced again to prison sentences without the time served in detention having any mitigating effect on their sentences to imprisonment."
And not to have any bearing of a given sentence in addition to REMAND time in custody.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 11 Sep 2010 20:41:36 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 12 Sep 2010 : 01:31:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by toubab1020
I understand the stance that Nyarikangbanna is taking. My understanding of the article was to raise the subject outlined in the following quote:
"We have noticed that a number of accused persons sent to the remand wing of the central prisons are spending months and even years in detention only to be sentenced again to prison sentences without the time served in detention having any mitigating effect on their sentences to imprisonment."
And not to have any bearing of a given sentence in addition to REMAND time in custody.
Like I said, we don't know whether the magistrate was going to deliver a one year sentence but for the time the defendant had served in remand. So we can't say the time he/she spent in remand have not had a mitigating effect on his/her sentence. Like Sister Omega said, something is missing in this report.
Regards |
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
