Reflections on sentencing in Tanzania

Reflections on sentencing in Tanzania

Author Edward Hoseah

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations:Edward Gamaya Hoseah, PhD in Law (University of Dar es Salaam); Advocate of the High Court, Tanzania.
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 33 Issue 1, p. 89 – 105

Abstract

This commentary explores the sentencing regime in Tanzania, beginning with pre-colonial arrangements that focused on practices now described as ‘restorative’ forms of justice. A leading case is discussed to show how disputes were resolved in pre-colonial Tanzania. The article then turns to examine the contemporary sentencing regime. The Court of Appeal is the highest judicial body in Tanzania. Their decisions are followed and binding on all courts below it. More recently, statutory authority over judicial discretion has undermined the ability of the judiciary to individualise sentencing. Current judicial pronouncements on sentencing are scattered and there is an absence of guidelines to assist judges and users of the court system. After discussing the objectives of sentencing in Tanzania, and the principal sanctions, the author offers some commentary on the direction of necessary reforms in this jurisdiction. The commentary further notes the absence of comprehensive and coherent guidelines to assist the courts in making an informed choice at sentencing. Sentencing guidelines set the initial benchmark and help courts to achieve uniformity and consistency in sentencing. As other contributions to this special issue of the journal demonstrate, several African jurisdictions have adopted guidelines, thereby providing Tanzania with working models for potential reforms.

The pursuit of consistency in sentencing: Exploring Kenya’s sentencing guidelines

The pursuit of consistency in sentencing: Exploring Kenya’s sentencing guidelines

Author Juliet Okoth

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: Juliet R Amenge Okoth LLB (Moi) LLM LLD (University of the Western Cape). Visiting Professional, University of Basel; formerly Lecturer, International Criminal Law (University of Nairobi).
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 33 Issue 1, p. 106 – 125

Abstract

Until 2016 the sentencing system in Kenya was mainly geared towards achieving individualised justice with very little emphasis on consistency. The only guidance that courts had at sentencing was guideline judgments from the high court and Court of Appeal. The judgements reveal a conservative stance towards issuing guidance with emphasis being placed on the unfettered discretion of courts in sentencing. This state of affairs contributed to unjustified disparity in sentencing and as a result, the Task Force on Sentencing recommended the adoption of sentencing guidelines to promote consistency. The Sentencing Guidelines adopted in Kenya in 2016, offer a uniform set of standards to guide courts in the process of sentencing. They provide a consistency of approach that courts are to use during sentencing which is expected to contribute to consistent outcomes. The Sentencing Guidelines are a positive development towards achieving the rule of law values of certainty and predictability in sentencing by making the sentencing process transparent and more comprehensible to the public. Nonetheless, the relaxed approach adopted by the guidelines towards sentencing raises doubts as to whether it is an effective measure towards achieving consistency in sentencing.

From discretionary to structured sentencing in Uganda

From discretionary to structured sentencing in Uganda

Author J Kamuzze

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: PhD (Strathclyde) LLM (Nottingham) LLB Hons (Makerere). Lawyer at Fides Legal Advocates, Kampala; former lecturer at the School of Law Makerere University.
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 33 Issue 1, p. 126 – 147

Abstract

In August 2010, the then Chief Justice, Benjamin Odoki, acknowledged the existence of unwarranted disparities across Ugandan sentencing.1 Justice Odoki then proceeded to appoint a Taskforce to develop sentencing guidelines for magistrates and judges in Uganda. In 2013, the Taskforce issued Uganda’s first Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2013 (hereafter the Uganda Sentencing Guidelines). This essay provides an insight into the major historical events that shaped sentencing guideline reform in Uganda and attempts to show a link between the distribution of sentencing authority in Uganda and how this shaped the nature, form and enforcement of Uganda’s Sentencing Guidelines. The essay also provides a brief overview of the sentencing framework in Uganda. The essay analyses the nature, form and enforcement of the Ugandan Guidelines with a view to drawing some lessons for other African jurisdictions.

Sentencing in Ethiopia: Sanctions, guidelines and reform

Sentencing in Ethiopia: Sanctions, guidelines and reform

Author Kassahun Molla Yilma

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: LLB LLM MSc [Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands], Legal Consultant at International Tribunal and Researcher, The Hague, Netherlands.
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 33 Issue 1, p. 148 – 167

Abstract

This article explores the Ethiopian sentencing framework. Ethiopia is one of the few African jurisdictions to develop a systematic sentencing guidelines system. These guidelines have been in operation for several years now, and represent a useful model for other African states to adopt. Although a number of problems remain (and are discussed in this article) the Ethiopian guidelines follow a principled approach to sentencing and are likely to have achieved beneficial effects with respect to trial court sentencing practices. This positive development can be complemented by introducing reform in several other areas, which are also suggested in this article. These include expanding the existing sanctions, establishing institutional facilities for the enforcement of alternative sanctions, and establishing a custody threshold.

Fingerprint evidence under scrutiny: Issues raised by six international forensic reports (part 2)

Fingerprint evidence under scrutiny: Issues raised by six international forensic reports (part 2)

Authors Lirieka Meintjes Van Der Walt and Mercy Chiwara

ISSN: 1996-2118
Affiliations: BJuris LLB (UPE); LLM (Rhodes); LLD (Rijksunversiteit Leiden), Adjunct Professor of Law, Leader of the Law, Science and Justice Research Niche Area, University of Fort Hare; LLB; LLM (University of Fort Hare).
Source: South African Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 33 Issue 1, p. 168 – 191

Abstract

Part 1 of this article, separately published in 2019 (32(2)) SACJ 155, scrutinises the Mayfield Report and the NAS Report with regard to fingerprint evidence. This section, Part 2 of the article, specifically interrogates the 2011 Scottish Fingerprint Inquiry Report (SFI Report) (consisting of 750 pages); the 2012 National Institute of Science and Technology Report (NIST Report) (consisting of 249 pages), the 2016 Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods Report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST Report) (consisting of 174 pages) and the 2017 Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis: Latent Fingerprint Examination of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS Report) (consisting of 166 pages). In this article, the summaries of these extensive and incisive reports and the recommendations contained therein, clearly reflect a startling similarity in the findings of the different reports. It is pointed out that all the reports register pertinent challenges faced by fingerprint evidence with regard to validity and reliability. The article concludes by asserting that South Africa might well heed the challenges and shortcomings registered by these reports when deciding on the relative weight that should be attached to fingerprint evidence.