 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Jun 2011 : 15:57:18
|
THE POINT REPORTS Life imprisonment for rapist
"Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Justice Lamin Jobarteh of the High Court in Banjul yesterday convicted and sentenced one Lamin Jah to life imprisonment after he was found guilty of rape, robbery, assault and stealing.
The convicted person was reported to have committed the offence at Kotu on 2 September 2009.
Meanwhile, drama unfolded when the convict's relatives protested in court against the court's verdict.
Mammey Faal, Fatou Faal, Awa Jah and Kumba Gisseh were subsequently fined D25,000 each in default to serve three years imprisonment with hard labour for contempt of court.
Author: Malamin Conteh"
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2011 : 17:15:31
|
Justice Lamin Jobarteh has in my view given an excessive sentence here, knowing full well that these four people who caused a disturbance at sentencing of Lamin Jah have very little hope of raising D25,000 each and so will be at Mile 2 for 3 years hard labour.
link to same story different paper.
http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7031 |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 09 Jun 2011 01:31:49 |
 |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2011 : 15:09:44
|
Very understandable that they should appeal,BUT,as the daily news reported:
http://dailynews.gm/africa/gambia/article/lawyer-secka-appeals-against-sentence-on-rapists-relatives
"The women came to court under escort to hear their appeal, but the case could not proceed." 
Why ? no mention of that,the Daily News is often very clear to establish reasons for things, this time they have failed,OR perhaps,"someone" has had a word and told them that under the laws of the Gambia reporting a reason which reflects badly on the judicial system may lead them into conflict with "someone" which may have consequences on the publication of their newspaper in the future,this is just a thought,maybe the reporter broke his pencil and couldn't remember what the reason was,who knows! 
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2011 : 13:34:29
|
Much Better, fair, I hope that this judge will THINK before he invokes such an excessive penalty on people for contempt.
http://observer.gm/africa/gambia/article/justice-jobarteh-reviews-and-releases-four-persons-cited-for-contempt-of-court
Justice Jobarteh reviews and releases four persons cited for contempt of court
Africa » Gambia
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Justice Lamin AMS Jobarteh of the High Court in Banjul yesterday released four persons who were recently cited for contempt of court by the said High Court, after reviewing the punishment meted out to them.
The four, Fatou Faal, Mamie Faal, Ndey Awa Jah and Kumba Gisseh were each fined the sum of D25, 000 in default to serve three years imprisonment for contempt of court by the presiding judge, Justice Lamin AMS Jobarteh. Following the punishment meted out on the four persons, a motion on notice dated 8th of June 2011 was filed, seeking that the applicants (the four persons) be given the opportunity to purge themselves of their contempt before the said court.
That the said court reviews the punishment meted out to the applicants, having regards to their wholesome and unqualified apology and regret for their contumacious behavior and any further order that the said court may deem fit to make. Lawyer P.C.O. Secka, the applicants’ counsel, in moving his motion, submitted that the motion on notice was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit sworn to by the applicants themselves.
P.C.O Secka then urged the court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to have unfettered control over the conduct and behaviour of anybody be they litigants, counsels, court staff and as in the case of the applicants, as mere spectators. P.C.O. Secka explained that the inherent jurisdiction of the courts extends not only to punishing one who falls foul of the court in its power to control its proceedings but it also includes the power of the court to revisit any punishment meted out if the contempt are ready, able and willing to purge themselves of their contumacious behaviour.
The applicants counsel, P.C.O. Secka who dissociated himself of any action tending to show the slightest disrespect to the courts submitted that it is inexcusable to show any form of disrespect to the court, adding that any such disrespect shown to the authority of the court would have an adverse effect on the public perception of the rule of law. The DDPP, S.H Barkun, counsel for the state/respondent did not oppose the motion nor file any affidavit in opposition, but rather left the issue to the law and the bossom of the said court.
In his ruling yesterday, Tuesday 21st of June 2011, Justice Lamin AMS Jobarteh disclosed that he was deeply moved by applicants counsel submissions and pleas. Justice Jobarteh cited the case of Attorney General versus Time Newspaper Ltd (1974) AC 273, wherein Lord Diplock stated that the authority and functions of the court are thus: - “My lords in any civilised society, it is a function of government to maintain courts of law to which its citizens can have access for the impartial decision of disputes as to their legal rights and obligations towards one another individually and towards the state as representing society as a whole.
The provision of such a system for the administration of Justice by courts of law and the maintenance of public confidence in it, are essential if citizens are to live together in peaceful association with one another. Contempt of courts is a generic term descriptive of conduct in relation to particular proceedings in a court of law which tends to undermine that system or to inhibit citizens from availing themselves of it for the settlement of their disputes.” Justice Jobarteh pointed out that the pronouncement of Lord Diplock is very instructive which can hardly be overemphasised, adding that without the courts and the rule of laws, no society can live in peace.
Justice Jobarteh further pointed out that such deplorable behaviour of the applicants in the face of the court leaves much to be desired, noting that it shows that they lack home training.The presiding judge, who described the applicants’ behaviour as inexcusable remarked that the applicants ought to have known that such behaviours would land them in the greatest possible difficulty. Justice Jobarteh remarked that there cannot be anything of greater consequence than to keep the steam of justice clear and pure, adding that parties may proceed with safely both to themselves and their characters.
He stated that the courts are fountains of justice and the last resort for people to seek redress, and so must be respected so as to enable them [courts] administer justice impartially. Justice Jobarteh stated that any infraction, disrespect, disobedience or infringement in the face of the court must be dealt with in the most appropriate manner. The presiding judge pointed out that government is relentlessly making every effort for justice to reach the doorsteps of the citizenry, adding that citizens should therefore reciprocate for the achievement of such a noble goal.
Justice Jobarteh warned that he would never sit idly and condone such contumacious behaviors of the like of the applicants without addressing it. He expressed hope that the punishment meted out to the applicant have set a very strong signal to other people and to the applicants themselves which they would forever remember. Justice Jobarteh disclosed that considering the fact that the applicants have made an unqualified apology, he was convinced that they have learnt good lessons for the punishment, coupled with the ordeal of having been embarrassed and imprisoned is traumatically reformative for uninitiated first offenders like them.
Justice Lamin AMS Jobarteh then invoked his inherent jurisdiction and altered their sentences as follows:
a) The previous fine of D25, 000 and in default to serve three years imprisonment be substituted with the term they have already served.
b) That the applicants enter into a bond for the sum of D25, 000 each with one Gambian surety in like sum with clear identifiable address and a valid Gambian identification or voters registration card, copy of which must be attached to the said bonds.
c) That the applicants must keep the peace for three years, failing which they shall serve three years sentence.
Author: by Sidiq Asemota
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
