Court sentences habitual offender to 6 years in prison for third conviction

In her judgement, the presiding magistrate told the court that facts admitted by the convict were that on 8 September 2026, at Pipeline, the complainant, Emmanuel Tobi, left his residence to go to work. On his way, the complainant realised that he had left one of his mobile phones and decided to return to retrieve it.  Upon returning to his residence, he found his house open. He also received an alert on his mobile phone, indicating that someone had entered his house. He entered the house and found the convict inside holding two tablets belonging to him. He raised an alarm and shouted: “Thief! Thief!” The convict attempted to run from the premises but neighbours responded to the alarm and apprehended him. The stolen property was recovered. The two tablets, the Tecno mobile phone and the other recovered property were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits. The value of the property stolen was D63,320, comprising two tablets valued at D42,320, one Tecno mobile phone valued at D15,000 and a calculus phone valued at D6,000. A black bag was also recovered from the convict. Inside the bag were a chisel, two pliers, two screwdrivers, a broken padlock, a black facial hood and a torch light with teaser. In his plea of mitigation, the convict begged the court for mercy. “I have two wives and children. My children are not attending school right now due to my actions,” he pleaded. “The court has carefully considered the following circumstances. It has taken into account the convict’s plea of guilt and his admission of the facts. His guilty plea has saved the court’s time and resources that would have been required for a full trial. The court further takes into account the fact that the stolen property was recovered. These are matters which the court considers to be mitigating,” she further said. The magistrate went on to say that the court, having heard the convict’s plea in mitigation, inquired whether he was a first-time offender. She stated that Cadet Inspector L. Mendy produced the records of the convict’s previous conviction. “The records disclosed that in 2011, the convict was convicted of shop breaking and stealing and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The records further disclosed that in 2022, the convict was convicted of breaking into a building to commit a felony and stealing and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The court has carefully considered these previous convictions," she adduced. She further stated that the court considered the present offence to be serious, adding that the convict unlawfully entered the dwelling house of another person and was found inside the premises with the complainant’s property. “The offence was committed in broad daylight. Although the offence is therefore not burglary committed at night, the fact that it occurred during the day does not diminish the seriousness of the unlawful intrusion into the complainant’s home. The circumstances demonstrate preparation,” she further told the court. The previous sentences, said the magistrate, did not appear to have deterred the convict from further offending. She stated that the court must therefore give meaningful weight to deterrence, while still recognizing the possibility of rehabilitation. “The court has also considered whether a non-custodial sentence would be appropriate. Having regard to the seriousness of the present offences and the convict’s convictions, the court is satisfied that a non-custodial sentence would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence or sufficiently serve the objectives of deterrence and protection of the community. A custodial sentence is therefore warranted,” she declared.