Share
Uganda v Okot Bitek & 2 Others (Criminal Case No. 385 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 71 (8 July 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] UGHC 71
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Stephen Mubiru, J
- Case number
- Criminal Case No. 385 of 2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Stephen Mubiru, J
- Case number
- Criminal Case No. 385 of 2019
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court accepted the accused persons' pleas of guilty to the charge of murder, finding that the facts as presented by the prosecution and admitted by the accused established their participation in the fatal assault. In determining sentence, the court considered the maximum penalty for murder but found that the circumstances did not warrant the death penalty. Applying the sentencing guidelines, the court adopted a starting point of 30–35 years' imprisonment, then granted a one-third reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in a range of 20–25 years. After weighing aggravating factors (the savage and deadly nature of the attack) and mitigating factors (early guilty plea, first-time offenders, dependents, remorse, and HIV status), the court approved the plea agreement for a sentence of 22 years' imprisonment for each accused. The court further deducted one year and four months for time spent on remand, resulting in a final sentence of 20 years and seven months' imprisonment for each accused. The court advised the convicts of their right to appeal the legality and severity of the sentence within fourteen days.
Court disposition
Both accused convicted on their own plea of guilty to murder and sentenced to 20 years and 7 months' imprisonment each, with right of appeal explained.
Orders
- Each accused is convicted of murder under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
- Each accused is sentenced to 20 years and 7 months' imprisonment, effective from the date of sentencing.
- The period of one year and four months spent on remand is deducted from the sentence.
- Each convict is advised of the right to appeal the legality and severity of the sentence within fourteen days.
02
Material facts
Parties
Uganda
Applicant Counsel: Mr. Omia PatrickOkot Bitek
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Walter Okidi LadwarOkot George
Defendant Counsel: Mr. Walter Okidi LadwarAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Imprisonment Okot Bitek Months: 247
- Sentence Imprisonment Okot George Months: 247
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Case / Conviction and Sentencing After Plea Bargain
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused persons are guilty of murder as charged under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
- 02
What is the appropriate sentence for the accused persons upon their plea of guilty to murder.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution submitted that the accused participated in a savage attack resulting in the death of the deceased, using excessive deadly force. The aggravating factors included the brutality of the assault and the use of weapons such as pangas and sticks. The prosecution prayed for a sentence reflecting the gravity of the offence, but acknowledged the plea bargain agreement reached with the accused.
- Respondent
- The defence highlighted that both accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, are first-time offenders, have dependents, are remorseful, and are HIV positive. They requested leniency, emphasizing the accused's personal circumstances and their willingness to accept responsibility for the offence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 189 of the Penal Code Act
The maximum penalty for murder is death, but this is reserved for the most egregious cases; lesser sentences may be imposed in appropriate circumstances.
- 02
Item 1 of Part I, Third Schedule, Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013
The starting point for custodial sentences for murder is 35 years' imprisonment, subject to aggravating and mitigating factors.
- 03
Regulation 21(k), Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013; R v. Buffrey (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 511; R v. Fearon [1996] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 25 CA
A plea of guilty is a mitigating factor and may warrant a reduction of sentence, typically by one third.
- 04
Article 23(8) of the Constitution; Regulation 15(2), Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013
The period spent on remand must be deducted from the final sentence imposed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court accepted the accused persons' pleas of guilty to the charge of murder, finding that the facts as presented by the prosecution and admitted by the accused established their participation in the fatal assault. In determining sentence, the court considered the maximum penalty for murder but found that the circumstances did not warrant the death penalty. Applying the sentencing guidelines, the court adopted a starting point of 30–35 years' imprisonment, then granted a one-third reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in a range of 20–25 years. After weighing aggravating factors (the savage and deadly nature of the attack) and mitigating factors (early guilty plea, first-time offenders, dependents, remorse, and HIV status), the court approved the plea agreement for a sentence of 22 years' imprisonment for each accused. The court further deducted one year and four months for time spent on remand, resulting in a final sentence of 20 years and seven months' imprisonment for each accused. The court advised the convicts of their right to appeal the legality and severity of the sentence within fourteen days.
Obiter and limits
- The death penalty is reserved for the worst cases of murder and is not mandatory in all cases of conviction for murder.
- A plea of guilty should be considered as a mitigating factor, but the extent of the discount remains at the court's discretion.
- The sentencing guidelines provide a framework but do not remove judicial discretion in determining the appropriate sentence.
Court disposition
Both accused convicted on their own plea of guilty to murder and sentenced to 20 years and 7 months' imprisonment each, with right of appeal explained.
- Each accused is convicted of murder under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
- Each accused is sentenced to 20 years and 7 months' imprisonment, effective from the date of sentencing.
- The period of one year and four months spent on remand is deducted from the sentence.
- Each convict is advised of the right to appeal the legality and severity of the sentence within fourteen days.
Source and reliance status
High Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA SITTING AT GULU
CRIMINAL CASE No. 0385 OF 2019
UGANDA ….….……………….….…….….….….….…..…………….… PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
| | 1. | OKOT BITEK<br>} | | |----|----|--------------------|--------------------------------| | | 2. | OKOT GEORGE<br>} | ……………….….………….….…….……… ACCUSED | | 10 | 3. | OKENY PATRICK<br>} | |
Before: Hon Justice Stephen Mubiru.
PROCEEDINGS
8 th 15 July, 2020
9.30 am
Attendance
Mr. Kilama Stephen, Court Clerk.
Mr. Omia Patrick, Resident State Attorney for the Prosecution.
20 Mr. Walter Okidi Ladwar, Counsel for the accused.
The accused is present in court
A1 Okot Bitek: I speak Acholi.
A2 Okot George: I speak Acholi.
25 State Attorney: we have negotiated a plea bargain and accordingly executed a plea agreement for each of the two accused which I pray to present to court.
Counsel for the accused: That is correct.
A1: I signed the agreement willingly at pages 5. My constitutional rights were explained to me and I willingly waived them fully cognisant of the 30 consequences of signing the plea agreement.
A2: I signed the agreement willingly at pages 5. My constitutional rights were explained to me and I willingly waived them fully cognisant of the consequences of signing the plea agreement.
| | $Count:$ | The two agreements are received and hereby form part of the court record. | | | | |--------------|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| | $\mathsf{S}$ | | | | <b></b><br>Stephen Mubiru<br>Judge<br>$8^{\text{th}}$ July, 2020. | | | | $Count:$ | | | The Indictment is read and explained to the two accused in the Acholi language. | | | | <b>Details;</b> | | Murder C/s 188 and 189 of <i>The Penal Code Act</i> . It is alleged that the two accused | | | | | | and others some of whom are still at large, on the 17 <sup>th</sup> day of February, 2019 at | | | | | 10 | | | Olinga village in Amuru District murdered Loum Janani. | | | | | $A1$ : | | I have understood the indictment. It is true. | | | | | $Count:$ | | A plea of guilty is entered. | | | | 15 | | | | $\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\\$<br>Stephen Mubiru<br>Judge<br>$8th$ July, 2020. | | | | $A2:$ | | I have understood the indictment. It is true. | | | | | $Count:$ | | A plea of guilty is entered. | | | | 20 | | | | Stephen Mubiru<br>Judge<br>$8$ <sup>th</sup> July, 2020. | | | 25 | <b>State Attorney:</b> | |
| The deceased was a boda boda rider operating at Olinga village, Pabbo | | | | | | | sub-county in Amuru District. On 16 <sup>th</sup> February, 2019 he was hired by the | | | | | | | co-accused of the two accused and another man to take them to a forest to | | | | | | | cut timber with a power saw. The deceased together with another boda | | | | | | | boda rider carried the two men to the forest together with their power saw | | | 30 | | | | and later returned to the stage. The following day 17 <sup>th</sup> February, 2019 the | | | | | | | two men returned to the stage and accused the deceased of having stolen | | | | | | | their power saw, which he denied. They took him and his colleague back | | | | | | | to the forest where they were joined by the two accused and other people | | | | | | | in assaulting him as they demanded he produces the power saw, until he | | | 35 | | | | died. They used pangas and sticks in beating the deceased. The incident | |
$\mathsf{2}$
| | | | | was reported to the police who came to the scene and arrested the accused. | | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--| | | | | The police arranged for a | post mortem examination of the body.<br>It<br>was | | | | | | | found that the cause of death was fractured his ribs, punctured his ribs and | | | | | | cause of death was cardiac-pulmonary arrest due to severe | lung and heart | | | 5 | | | contusion following severe blunt force contusion | resulting from assault. | | | | | | The two accused were<br>subjected to | medical examination whereupon they | | | | | were | found to be adults<br>and<br>of sound mind. | A1 was found to be 35 years | | | | | | old and had<br>no injury. A2 was found to be 38 years old with no injury. | | | | | State Attorney:<br>I pray<br>to tender in the medical forms. | | | | | | 10 | Defence Counsel: | | I have no objection. | | | | | Court: | | They are received as part of the facts and are marked P. Ex.1, P. Ex.2 and | | | | | | P. Ex.3 | respectively. | | | | | | | | ………………………………… | | | 15 | | | | Stephen Mubiru<br>Judge | | | | | | 8 | th July, 2020. | | | | | | | | | | | A1: | I have understood the
facts. They are correct. | | | | | | A2: | I have understood the facts. They are correct. | | | | | 20 | Court: | | Each of the two accused is convicted on his own plea of guilty | for the | | | | | | offence of Murder<br>c/s 188<br>and 189 | of The Penal Code Act. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | …………………………………<br>Stephen Mubiru | | | 25 | | | | Judge | | | | | | 8 | th July, 2020. | | | | State Attorney: | | | the aggravating factors are that it was a savage attack involving the use of | | | | | | excessive deadly force. | | | | 30 | Counsel for the accused: | | the mitigation is that A1<br>is 35 | years old while A2 is 38 years old, | | | | | | both<br>readily pleaded guilty, are | first time offenders, have<br>children | | | | | | and wives<br>to look after. They | are<br>remorseful.<br>Both are HIV | | | | | | positive. | | | | | | | | | |
- A1: I pray for forgiveness from court since I have admitted the offence. I am the only child of my mother who now is alone yet I was the one taking care of her. She is also disabled as a result of insurgency. - 5 A2: I have eight children and I was told my wife died leaving the children. I pray for mercy to get another chance to look after my children.
SENTENCE AND REASONS FOR THE SENTENCE
- 10 The offence of murder is punishable by the maximum penalty of death as provided for under section 189 of the *Penal Code Act*. However, this represents the maximum sentence which is usually reserved for the worst of the worst cases of Murder. This is not one of such cases, and it is for that reason that the death sentence was discounted, giving way to a plea bargain. - 15 Where the death penalty is not imposed, the starting point in the determination of a custodial sentence for offences of murder has been prescribed by Item 1 of Part I (under Sentencing ranges - Sentencing range in capital offences) of the Third Schedule of *The Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013* as 35 years' imprisonment. I have taken into account the current sentencing practices in relation to cases of this nature. I have 20 thus adopted a starting point of a range of 30 – 35 years' imprisonment.
From this, the convict is entitled to a discount for having pleaded guilty. The practice of taking guilty pleas into consideration is a long standing convention which now has a near statutory footing by virtue of regulation 21 (k) of *The Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of*
- 25 *Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013*. As a general principle (rather than a matter of law though) an offender who pleads guilty may expect some credit in the form of a discount in sentence. The requirement in the guidelines for considering a plea of guilty as a mitigating factor is a mere guide and does not confer a statutory right to a discount which, for all intents and purposes, remains a matter for the court's discretion. However, where a judge takes a plea of - 30 guilty into account, it is important that he or she says he or she has done so (see *R v. Fearon*
*[1996] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 25 CA*). In this case therefore I have taken into account the fact that the convict readily pleaded guilty as one of the factors mitigating her sentence.
The sentencing guidelines leave discretion to the Judge to determine the degree to which a 5 sentence will be discounted by a plea of guilty. As a general, though not inflexible, rule, a reduction of one third has been held to be an appropriate discount (see: *R v. Buffrey (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 511*). Similarly in *R v. Buffrey 14 Cr. App. R (S) 511*). The Court of Appeal in England indicated that while there was no absolute rule as to what the discount should be, as general guidance the Court believed that something of the order of one-third would be an 10 appropriate discount. In light of the convict's plea of guilty, and persuaded by the English practice, because the convict before me pleaded guilty, I propose at this point to reduce the sentence by one third from the starting point of a range of 30 – 35 years to a range of 20 – 25 years' imprisonment, before mitigation.
15 Having considered the sentencing guidelines and the current sentencing practice in relation to offences of this nature, the aggravating and mitigating factors outlined above, I hereby accept the submitted plea agreement entered into by the accused, his counsel, and the State Attorney and in accordance thereto, to find the proposed sentence of twenty two (22) years' imprisonment for each of the accused as befitting the circumstances of the case and the antecedents of each of the 20 convicts.
In accordance with Article 23 (8) of the Constitution and Regulation 15 (2) of The *Constitution (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013*, to the effect that the court should deduct the period spent on remand from the sentence considered appropriate, after all factors have been taken into account, I note that the convicts were charged on 5 th 25 March, 2019 and have been in custody since then. I hereby take into account and set off one (1) year and four (4) months as the period each of the two convicts has already spent on remand. I therefore sentence each of the two convicts to a term of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and seven (7) months to be served starting today.
Having been convicted and sentenced on their own plea of guilty, each of the two convicts is advised that he has a right of appeal against the legality and severity of this sentence, within a period of fourteen days.
| 5 | th day of July, 2020.<br>Dated at Gulu<br>this 8 | …………………………………<br>Stephen Mubiru,<br>Judge.<br>th July, 2020.<br>8 | |----|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------| | 10 | | | | 15 | | | | 20 | | | | 25 | | | | 30 | | | | 35 | | | | 40 | | |
U. C. FORM 80
Warrant of Commitment on a Sentence of Imprisonment Section 298(1) Criminal Procedure Code Act
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN
$10$ $TO:$ AT GULU
The Officer in Charge,
Government Prison, Gulu.
WARRANT OF COMMITMENT
WHEREAS on the $8^{th}$ day of July, 2020 OKOT BITEK the $1^{st}$
Prisoner in Criminal Session Case No.0385 of the Calendar Year for 15 2019 was convicted before me: Hon. Justice STEPHEN MUBIRU, a Judge of the High Court of Uganda, of the offence of MURDER C/s 188 and 189 of The Penal Code Act and was sentenced to TWENTY (20) YEARS AND SEVEN (7) MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT.
$20$
THIS IS TO AUTHORISE AND REQUIRE YOU, the Superintendent to receive the said OKOT BITEK into your custody in the said prison together with this Warrant and there carry the afore said sentence into execution according to Law.
GIVEN under my Hand and the Seal of the court this $8^{th}$ day of $25$ July, 2020.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
JUDGE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$\mathsf{S}$
Warrant of Commitment on a U. C. FORM 80 Sentence of Imprisonment Section 298(1) Criminal Procedure Code Act
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN
10 TO: AT GULU
The Officer in Charge,
Government Prison, Gulu.
WARRANT OF COMMITMENT
*WHEREAS* on the 8 th day of July, 2020 OKOT GEORGE the 2 nd
15 Prisoner in Criminal Session Case No.0385 of the Calendar Year for 2019 was convicted before me: Hon. Justice STEPHEN MUBIRU, a Judge of the High Court of Uganda, of the offence of MURDER C/s 188 and 189 of The Penal Code Act and was sentenced to TWENTY (20) YEARS AND SEVEN (7) MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT.
THIS IS TO AUTHORISE AND REQUIRE YOU, the Superintendent to receive the said OKOT GEORGE into your custody in the said prison together with this Warrant and there carry the afore said sentence into execution according to Law.
GIVEN under my Hand and the Seal of the court this 8 th 25 day of July, 2020.
> ………………………………....… JUDGE.
5
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.