Appeals Court Reduces Sentence of Convicted Aggravated Defiler The Ugandan Court of Appeal has reduced the sentence of a man convicted of aggravated defilement from 45 to 30 years in prison. The appellant, whose name is withheld to protect the victim’s identity, was found guilty by the High Court in 2019 of raping a 13-year-old girl. The court noted that the girl had been left psychologically and physically traumatized by the incident. However, the Court of Appeal judges, led by Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire, ruled that the High Court had erred in considering the aggravating circumstances of the case when sentencing the appellant. The judges argued that the appellant had not planned or premeditated the crime and that he was not in a position of trust or authority over the victim. The judges also took into account the appellant’s age of 23 years at the time of the offense and his lack of prior criminal convictions. They noted that the appellant had expressed remorse for his actions and had shown potential for rehabilitation. Based on these factors, the Court of Appeal reduced the appellant’s sentence to 30 years in prison. The judges emphasized that the sentence was still severe but proportionate to the gravity of the offense. The appellant’s lawyer, Ms. Irene Mutesi, welcomed the reduced sentence. She said that her client was “grateful for the court’s consideration of his mitigating circumstances and his potential for rehabilitation.” The prosecution, however, expressed disappointment with the reduction in sentence. The prosecutor said that the original sentence of 45 years was justified given the heinous nature of the crime. The case highlights the complex challenges faced by the courts in sentencing offenders for serious sexual offenses. Courts must balance the need to protect society and punish the offender with the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.Court Reduces Sentence for Convicted Aggravated Defiler An appeals court has reduced the sentence of a man convicted of aggravated defilement of a minor. The man, whose identity cannot be revealed due to legal reasons, was originally sentenced to 25 years in prison by a lower court. However, the appeals court ruled that the sentence was excessive and reduced it to 15 years. The appeals court found that the lower court had not taken into account the mitigating factors in the case, such as the man’s lack of a criminal record and his willingness to take responsibility for his actions. The court also noted that the man had already served two years of his sentence, which should be taken into account when determining his final punishment. The victim’s family expressed disappointment with the reduced sentence, saying that it did not adequately reflect the severity of the crime. However, the appeals court said that it was bound by the law to consider all the relevant factors in the case and that it had made a fair and reasonable decision.