Supreme Court Upholds Consecutive Sentences For Convicts Involving Multiple Victims

The Supreme Court in Kampala has set another precedent in the country's jurisprudence, reinforcing the principle that consecutive sentences can be imposed in cases involving multiple victims and serious offences.  

This was in the case in which they dismissed an appeal by Gabiri Kasimu, who was convicted of two cases of attempted murder, upholding the Court of Appeal's decision to impose consecutive sentences.

The landmark decision was given by a Panel of five  Supreme Court Justices led by Professor Lillian Tibatemwa in their judgement delivered on Thursday in Kampala.   The Other Justices are Christopher Izama Madrama, Percy Night Tuhaise, Mike Chibita and Catherine Bamugemereire.'

In 2028, Kasimu appealed to the Supreme Court against the consecutive order sentencing him to 13 years on each count arguing that the sentences should run concurrently. 

However, the Supreme Court justices, ruled that the consecutive sentences were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

According to the court records, Kasimu had gone to a traditional Herbalist a one Bandiru Semuga, his brother-in-law's home in Bugoge village, Kayunga District, for treatment. However, he later turned violent, stabbing four of his brother-in-law's children with a knife on March 5, 2012. One of the children, Nakito Sofia, died from her injuries.

Kasimu was arrested, charged, and convicted of attempted murder. He was sentenced first sentenced to 18 years imprisonment on each count on his plea of guilt, with the sentences to run consecutively as ordered by the High Court. He is yet to stand a murder trial. 

However, Kasimu appealed to the Court of Appeal challenging the consecutive order.   The Court of Appeal partially allowed his appeal and reduced his sentence to 13 years imprisonment to run consecutively.

Kasimu thus appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the consecutive sentences were excessive and that the Court of Appeal had erred in law by not ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

However, the Prosecution represented by Andrew Odiit, Principal Assistant DPP, opposed the appeal. Odiit argued that the learned justices of the Court of Appeal did not err in maintaining that the sentences run consecutively. He submitted that the justices were rightly guided by the principle in S.2(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Odiit further submitted that in imposing sentences, courts may consider whether separate incidents or transactions are involved. In such circumstances, consecutive sentences are preferred. Where no separate incidents or transactions are involved, then the court may direct sentences to run concurrently.

Odiit argued that in the instant case, the incidents were separate and distinct and that each victim was deliberately injured with a knife, occasioning separate harm and danger. He cited the specific injuries sustained by each victim, including Nakayiza, who was stabbed with a knife in the back, below the left eye, and the left shoulder, and Nakakande, who was stabbed with a knife on the left side of her chest and the wrist joint of her right hand.

The Supreme Court justices, in their judgment, agreed with Odiit's submissions, ruling that the consecutive sentences were appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the fact that there were multiple victims.

The court noted that the offences were separate and distinct and that each victim had been deliberately injured with a knife, occasioning separate harm and danger.

The justices also cited a persuasive authority from the Supreme Court of Wales, which emphasized that public confidence in the administration of justice requires courts to avoid any suggestion that consecutive sentences are being offered as a discount for multiple offences.

"In essence, the fundamental rationale of the one transaction rule seems to suggest that consecutive sentences are unsuitable when the combined offences represent a singular violation of the same legally protected interest. While this principle is applicable in situations where multiple offences stem from the same circumstances, the mere proximity of the offences in time or location may not automatically indicate that they constitute a single transaction", said the Justices.

In dismissing Kasimu's appeal, the Supreme Court justices upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, ruling that the consecutive sentences were appropriate and that Kasimu's prayer for concurrent sentences was untenable in the circumstances of the case.