MANU vs. THE STATE

The appellant and a female co-accused were jointly charged after the female accused impersonated another person in order to gain admission into a nurses’ training school. Both accused pleaded guilty. The first accused, described by the trial court as a young girl but said by State counsel to be a 22-year-old woman, was bound over to be of good behaviour, while the appellant, a public officer who aided and abetted the impersonation in expectation of £20, was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. The appellant contended on appeal that the disparity in sentence was unjustified, especially as the first accused was the principal offender and the person who benefited from the offence, whereas he allegedly received no benefit. Portion of judgment: “Both defendants pleaded guilty, the young woman was bound over to be of good behaviour and the appellant herein was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment… The first accused was as a result of the impersonation admitted to the nurses’ training school and was fed and clothed freely… the appellant obtained no benefit.”

JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J. This small appeal has brought into focus the difficult question of the punishment or sentence of co-defendants; the fact that co-defendants have been punished at the same time draws attention to any discrimination between them. In this case the first accused whom the learned circuit judge described as a young girl (which description is not quite correct as learned state attorney informed the court that she was a young woman of twenty-two years), was charged jointly with the second accused, the appellant herein. Both defendants pleaded guilty, the young woman was bound over to be of good behaviour and the appellant herein was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment. The appellant has argued that there was no justification for the discrimination and that having regard to the sentence imposed on the first accused, which in fact meant that the first accused was not punished, the sentence of nine months on, the appellant was excessive and harsh. The appellant.....