News
Court of Appeal reduces convict's sentence from 35 to 28 years
Orach was convicted by the High Court in Kitgum District on May 4, 2016, in a trial presided over by Justice Margaret Mutonyi.
The appellate court justices noted that the trial judge had failed to calculate and deduct the period Orach had spent on remand when imposing the 35-year sentence.
By: Edward Anyoli, Journalist @New Vision
KAMPALA - The Court of Appeal has reduced a 35-year prison sentence for a man convicted of aggravated defilement of a 13-year-old girl.
The court found that the trial judge had failed to consider mitigating factors and properly account for the time he had spent on remand.
In their October 12 judgment, Justices Eva Luswata, Dr Asa Mugenyi and Musa Ssekaana reduced the sentence imposed on Philip Orach to 28 years.
Orach was convicted by the High Court in Kitgum District on May 4, 2016, in a trial presided over by Justice Margaret Mutonyi.
The appellate court justices noted that the trial judge had failed to calculate and deduct the period Orach had spent on remand when imposing the 35-year sentence.
They said the trial judge should have taken into account the time he had spent in custody before conviction when determining his sentence.
The court held that such omissions undermined consistency and proportionality in sentencing, concluding that the 35-year prison term imposed on the appellant was exceedingly harsh and excessive.
“Article 23(8) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, as amended, and Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature Practice Direction, 2013, the period of one year, two months, and twenty-eight days spent on remand is deducted from the substituted sentence," ruled court.
The appellate court justices noted that the trial judge had failed to calculate and deduct the period Orach had spent on remand when imposing the 35-year sentence.
They said the trial judge should have taken into account the time he had spent in custody before conviction when determining his sentence.
The court held that such omissions undermined consistency and proportionality in sentencing, concluding that the 35-year prison term imposed on the appellant was exceedingly harsh and excessive.
“Article 23(8) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, as amended, and Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature Practice Direction, 2013, the period of one year, two months, and twenty-eight days spent on remand is deducted from the substituted sentence," ruled court.
"The appellant’s effective sentence is 28 years and nine months and three days to be reckoned from the date of conviction."
The case arose from an incident on February 2, 2015, at Kal Central A’Village in Lamwo district, where the Orach was accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl while HIV-positive.
He denied the charge but was convicted of aggravated defilement after a full trial and sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Dissatisfied with the sentence, Orach, through his lawyer Alice Akellon Latigo, appealed. He argued that the trial court had failed to take into account the period he had spent on remand and that the 35-year prison term was harsh and excessive.
However, Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo, representing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), argued that the trial judge had arrived at the right decision, considering the gravity of the offence.
The case arose from an incident on February 2, 2015, at Kal Central A’Village in Lamwo district, where the Orach was accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl while HIV-positive.
He denied the charge but was convicted of aggravated defilement after a full trial and sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Dissatisfied with the sentence, Orach, through his lawyer Alice Akellon Latigo, appealed. He argued that the trial court had failed to take into account the period he had spent on remand and that the 35-year prison term was harsh and excessive.
However, Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo, representing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), argued that the trial judge had arrived at the right decision, considering the gravity of the offence.