The Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court should give some guidelines on matters that should be considered by the trial judge in deciding a minimum term for murder cases.
Justice Chandana Prematilaka made the comments on a judgment delivered on October 1 where he allowed a man jailed for murder to appeal his sentence.
Suliasi Nasara was found guilty of killing Nitin Kumar on November 16, 2014, and was jailed for life.
He was ordered to serve 18 years before parole could be considered.
“The trial judge does not seem to have set out as to what matters were considered in deciding whether to set or not to set a minimum term in the first place,” Justice Prematilaka said.
“I think that there is a need for the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to give some guidelines (i) as to what matters should be considered by the trial judge in deciding whether to set a minimum term and (ii) as to what matters should be considered when determining the length of the minimum term in sentencing an accused under section 237 of the Crimes Act.
The minimum period to be served before a pardon may be considered is a matter of discretion on the part of a sentencing judge depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
“However, the discretion to set a minimum term under section 237 of the Crimes Act is not the same as the mandatory requirement to set a non-parole term under section 18 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act.
Specific sentence provision of section 237 of the Crimes Act displaces the general sentencing arrangements set out in section 18 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act.
The reference to the court sentencing a person to imprisonment for life in section 18 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act is a reference to a life sentence that has been imposed as a maximum penalty, as distinct from a mandatory penalty.”
He allowed the appeal by Nasara so that the “full court inter alia could consider the issue relating to the minimum serving period of 18 years”.
