113. The Respondent State elaborates that the prerequisites for the offence of
armed robbery stated in Section 286 of the Penal Code are: being armed
with a dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument or being in the
company of any other person or if, at or immediately before or after the time
of robbery, he causes injury or uses personal violence on any person.
Further to that, Section 286 of the Penal Code has set out the maximum
sentence for armed robbery to be life in prison with or without corporal
punishment.
114. The Respondent State further affirms that when sentencing an accused,
these sections have to be read together with the Minimum Sentences Act,
as amended in 1994 by Section 2 of the Written Laws (Miscellaneous
Amendment) Act No. 6 of 1994. This Act amended the minimum sentence
from fifteen (15) years which was provided in the Written Laws
(Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 10 of the 1989 to thirty (30) in prison
for the offence of armed robbery. The Respondent State thus submits that
the First Applicant’s allegation on this point lacks merit.
***
115. The Court notes that Article 7(2) of the Charter stipulates the rule of “nullum
crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege” (also called the principle of legality),
as follows:
No one may be condemned for an act of omission, which did not
constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No
penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made
at the time it was committed. Punishment is personal and can be
imposed only on the offender.
116. This provision contains three elements of the principle of legality. The first
element embodies the principle of “no law, no crime” (nullum crimen sine
30