CRI/S/13/87

IN THE
HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the
Matter of :

REX

v

REJELENG
TSENOLI REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Filed by
the Hon. Mr. Justice B.K. Molai on the 25th day of May, 1987.

On 21st
May, 1987 I disposed of this case and the fol-lowing are the reasons
for my decision.

The
accused was convicted by a magistrate in Mohale's Hoek on seven (7)
counts of Housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.
The
allegations contained in the body of the charge sheet were that on
several dates ranging from 30th January, 1987 to 8th March,
1987 and
at a number of places within the district of Mohale's Hoek, the
accused broke into the houses of the complainants with
intent to
steel and unlawfully stole a variety of articles, therein mentioned,
the property or in the lawful possession of the
complainants.

The
accused had pleaded guilty to the charges and the provisions of S.
240(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act 1981
were
invoked.

The
facts, and these were admitted as correct by the accused, were that
had the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, the prosecution

would have adduced evidence to show that on the dates mentioned in
the various counts the complainants were away from their respective

houses. Before leaving their houses they had properly closed the
doors and secured the windows thereof. On their return, they,

however, found that either the doors or the windows of the houses had
been tempered with. On entering into the houses they found
that the
articles mentioned in the charge sheet were missing.

2

Neither
the accused nor any other person had the com­plainants'
permission to break into the houses and remove the articles.

Consequently the complainants reported the losses to their respective
local chiefs who immediately mounted a search for the missing

articles. As a result of information received during the course of
the search the accused was approached and interrogated. He eventually

led the searchers to a place where he produced a large number of
articles which were positively identified by the complainants
as part
of the property found missing after their houses had been broken
into.

The
accused, together with the property, was brought to Phamong police
post where he was cautioned and charged as aforesaid.

On the
evidence, there was no doubt in my mind that the complainants' houses
were broken into and their property removed therefrom
by the accused.
He did so unlawfully because it was without the permission of the
complainants. Regard being had to the fact that
it was not until a
search was mounted for the missing property and that some of it was
never recovered I was conviced that when
he broke into and unlawfully
removed the property from the complainants' houses, the accused did
so with the requisit intention
to steal.

I was
satisfied, therefore, that it had been established beyond a
reasonable doubt that the accused did commit the offences against

which he stood charged. That being so,I had no alternative but to
come to the conclusion that his convictions were perfectly in
order.

Coming
now to the question of sentence, the crown counsel informed the court
that the accused had previous convictions and produced
a record
thereof which was admitted by the accused. According to the record of
previous convic­tions, the accused was on 4th
January, 1985
convicted by the Mohale's Hoek Magistrate Court on five (5) counts of
Housebreaking with intent to steal and theft.
He was sentenced to six
(6) months imprisonment on each of the five counts.

3

In
mitigation of sentence, the accused addressed the court and asked for
leniency. He invited the court to take into consideration
that he did
not attend school, his father passed away in 1982 and only his mother
was bringing him up. He was also severely assaulted
by the
complainants before being brought to the police station.

For the
benefit of the accused I was prepared to take into account all the
points he had raised in mitiga­tion. In addition
I took into
consideration that he had pleaded guilty to the charges. Hopefully
that was a sign of remorse.

The
accused was only 20 years old. On account of his tender age, he did
not only lacked a maturity of action but in my view, also
stood a
chance of being rehabilitated.

However,
I was not prepared to turn a blind eye to the fact that the accused
had been convicted of serious offences calling for
a commensurately
serious punishment. He had previously been sentenced to 6 months
imprisonment on five counts of Housebreaking
with intent to steal and
theft. It would appear the sentence was not deterent enough for
shortly thereafter the accused had repeated
the same offence. If the
objective were to rehabilitate him it seemed to me there was a need
to place the accused in the hands
of the prison authorities for a
period that was long enough to enable them to do their work properly.

In the
circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the following sentences
were appropriate for the accused and accordingly sentenced
him :

Count I :
9 months imprisonment

Count II
: 6 " "

Count III
: 6 "

Count IV
: 6 " "

Count V :
6 " "

Count VI
: 6 " "

Count VII
: 9 " "

As the
offences in counts 2 and 3 were committed on the same day viz 30
January, 1987, it was ordered that the sentences in those
counts
should run concurrently. The offences in counts

4

4 and 5
were also committed on more or less the same day viz. 4th and 5th
March, 1987 It was likewise ordered that the sentences
in counts 4
and 5 should run concurrently. The sentences in counts 1, 6 and 7
were, however, to run consecutively.

The
accused would, therefore, serve an effective period of 36 months
imprisonment subject, of course to the provisions of Rule 34
of the
Prison Rules published under the Government Notice No. 27 of 1957.

B.M.
MOLAI

JUDGE

25th May,
1987.

For Crown
: Mr, Mokhobo

For
Defendent : In Person.