By: Isatou Sarr
The High Court in Banjul, presided over by Justice S.K. Jobarteh, has upheld a three-month prison sentence imposed on Muhammed Janneh for stealing electric cables, while correcting an error in the manner in which the sentence was structured.
The case arose from an appeal against a decision of the Brusubi Magistrates’ Court, where Janneh pleaded guilty on 6 June 2024 to stealing electric cables valued at D2,000 belonging to Kebba Mbaye. The offence occurred on 25 May 2024 and falls under Section 252 of the Criminal Code, which provides for a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
The trial magistrate sentenced Janneh to three months in prison and ordered him to pay D2,000 in compensation to the complainant, with an additional three months’ imprisonment in default of payment. The court also ordered that both sentences run concurrently and directed that Janneh be deported to Guinea upon completion of his sentence, noting that he had entered The Gambia three months before the offence.
Janneh did not contest his conviction but appealed for leniency, citing his status as a first-time offender, his role as the sole provider for his family, and his remorse. The State opposed the appeal, arguing that the sentence was lawful and proportionate.
In his judgment, Justice Jobarteh held that sentencing must take into account the seriousness of the offence, the need for public protection, and mitigating circumstances. He also referred to legal authorities including R v Lowe (1977) and Nyabally v The State (1997–2001) in considering the weight of a guilty plea and absence of prior convictions.
Applying the 2023 Sentencing Guidelines on theft, the judge noted that the offence fell within the category of greater harm and culpability, with a starting point of two years and six months’ imprisonment. However, he found that strong mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea, cooperation with authorities, remorse, and lack of previous convictions, justified a reduced sentence of three months’ imprisonment.
Justice Jobarteh ruled that the trial magistrate had exercised discretion properly and that both the custodial sentence and compensation order were lawful. The deportation order was also upheld under the Immigration Act.
However, the High Court identified a material error in ordering the custodial sentence and the default sentence for non-payment of compensation to run concurrently. The judge held that such sentences must run consecutively, stating that the earlier order was inconsistent with the law.
The court accordingly set aside the concurrency order and ruled that any default sentence would only take effect after completion of the custodial term.
Noting that Janneh had already served his sentence, Justice Jobarteh ordered his immediate discharge. The parties were informed of their right to appeal.