Mary Sithole and Notice Vengai v The State

The appellants were found in possession of a .22 Webley Revolver (serial number A15011) at Total Service Station, Kuwadzana 2, Harare, without a firearms certificate. They pleaded guilty to the charge of contravening section 4(1) as read with section 4(2) of the Firearms Act [Cap 10:09]. The firearm was possessed in a public place where cash is often kept, and service stations are notorious targets for robberies. They were sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, with 6 months suspended for 5 years on condition of good conduct.

• Whether the sentence of 18 months imprisonment (with 6 months suspended) for unlawful possession of a firearm was appropriate and should be interfered with on appeal
• Whether the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion judiciously

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of 18 months imprisonment (with 6 months suspended for 5 years on condition of good conduct) were confirmed.

An appellate court will only interfere with a sentence imposed by a trial court where the sentence is found to be inappropriate, there has been a misdirection, or the discretion has not been judiciously exercised. The discretion of a judicial officer who presides at trial in sentencing should not be lightly interfered with by a court of appeal. A sentence of 18 months imprisonment (with partial suspension) for unlawful possession of a firearm in a public place is within the appropriate range and does not induce a sense of shock.

The court observed that it is a notorious fact that service stations are often the target of robberies, which appeared to be a relevant consideration in assessing the seriousness of possessing an unlicensed firearm at such a location. The court also noted that the withdrawal of the appeal against conviction was laudable because there were no prospects of success.

This case reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with sentences imposed by trial courts unless there is a misdirection or the discretion has not been judiciously exercised. It provides guidance on the appropriate sentencing range for unlawful possession of firearms, particularly in public places that are potential targets for crime. The case demonstrates the court's concern about illegal firearms in vulnerable public locations such as service stations.