Supreme Court rejects juvenile plea by rape convict

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a rape and violent robbery convict who had faulted the Court of Appeal for upholding a custodial sentence imposed on him by the High Court in 2010.

David Junior Tukamuhebwa and Yubu Mulodi were convicted of violent robbery and rape by the High Court sitting at Mbarara; Tukamuhebwa had accused the lower courts of violating the Constitution when they failed to exonerate from imprisonment, because he was a juvenile at the time they committed the offences.

They had mainly appealed to the Supreme Court contending that while the Court of Appeal was substituting the 20 years imprisonment with 18 years against each of them for violent robbery, the High Court and the Court of Appeal failed to deduct the three years and seven months they had spent on remand.

However, while rejecting the plea by Tukamuhebwa that under the Constitution the courts below were compelled to protects the juveniles from custodial sentence, the court agreeing with Principal State Attorney Faith Turumanya that the plea of being a "juvenile" was an afterthought as it had never been an issue right from the very beginning of their trial.    

Justice Eldad Mwangusya chaired the coram. The other members were Justices Rubby Opio-Aweri, Faith Mwondha, Richard Buteera and Augustine Sebutulo Nshimye.

At trial, the High Court convicted the two men of the offences and sentenced each of them to 20 years imprisonment for violent robbery and 10 years for rape, with both sentences, however, to run concurrently. 

They appealed arguing that the trial court had failed to deduct the three years and seven months they spent on remand as the Constitution commanded them. 

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with Jolly Mutumba, who represented the convicts by substituting the trial court's sentence of 20 years imprisonment with18 years for the violent robbery, but maintained the 10 years for rape.

The Supreme Court, however, agreed with Mutumba that the Court of Appeal had failed to deduct the three years and seven months as the exact period the convicts had spent on remand.

However, while confirming that the period of 20 years imprisonment was appropriate in respect of aggravated robbery, it would deduct the three years and seven months, leaving them to serve 16 years and five months imprisonment from the day they were sentenced by the trial court.

The court also confirmed as appropriate the sentence of 10 year imprisonment for rape against each of them.