Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836703100405 |
| Published date | 01 October 1967 |
| Date | 01 October 1967 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judicial
Committee of the
Privy
Council
SENTENCE INCREASED
IN
ERROR
Dharmasena v. Inspector
of
Police, Kegalla
INHardtmannv. The Queen(1963, A .C. 746)
the
Judicial Com-
mittee,
in
refusing to interfere
with
asentence which
they
considered excessive, relied on a statement by Viscount Simon
L.C. in
Nawaz
v, The King-Emperor (1941,
L.R.
68
I.A.
126)
to
the
effect
that,
since
the
Judicial Committee is not arevising
court, it will interfere, broadly speaking, only where
there
has
been
an infringement of
the
essential principles of justice.
In
Dharmasena v. Inspector
of
Police, Kegalla (1967, 3
W.L.R.
505), therefore, it was essential for
the
appellants
that
they
should show such infringement, if they were to complain
successfully of their sentences.
They
were convicted on
indictments charging
them
with
(a) unlawful assembly
with
the
common object to commit robbery of a
motor
car; (b)
the
robbery of
the
car in prosecution of
the
common object;
and
(as an alternative to
(b»
with
(c) robbery of
the
car.
They
were convicted on each count
and
sentenced to
three
months'
rigorous imprisonment on each,
the
sentences for (b)
and
(c)
to
run
concurrently.
On
appeal,
the
Supreme Court,
under
the
erroneous impression
that
they
had
also been convicted on
afurther
count
charging
them
with
being armed
with
a
revolver, increased
the
sentences on (b) to two years
and
purported
to "increase"
that
on
the
count with which
they
had
not
been
charged to six months. As, however,
(c)
was alterna-
tive to
(b),
the
conviction
and
sentence on (c) were set aside.
The
net
result, however, was
that
the
appellants were to serve
sentences of 24 months, in
the
place of 6 months.
Upon
appeal, it was pointed
out
that
the
Supreme
Court
was empowered by s. 347 of
the
Criminal Procedure Code to
increase
the
amount
of
the
sentence on
the
charge of robbery
of
the
car in prosecution of
the
common object to two years, as
they
had
done. But
the
Committee
thought
that
the
possibility
258
To continue reading
Request your trial