“Having regard to the facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to restate the principles which must guide a Court of Appeal in deciding to interfere with the sentence passed by a lower Court. These principles appear to be laid down in 1912 by Mr. Justice Coleridge (as he then was) in R. v. Lewis Shershewsky 28 TLR 364, and also in 1926 by Lord Hewart, L.C.J. in R. v. Gumbs (1926) 19 Cr App R 74. The principles can be briefly put under three heads- 1. That an appeal Court should not interfere with a sentence which is the subject of an appeal merely because judges of the Court of Appeal might have passed a different sentence if they tried a case. 2. To consider the facts of a case. 3. To review only a sentence which is manifestly excessive or inadequate or wrong in principle. In the case of R. v. Ball (1951) 35 Cr App R 164 Hilbery J. (as he then was) reviewed the general principles on which sentences should be passed. He restated the principles thus- “In the first place, this Court does not alter a sentence which is the subject of an appeal merely because the members of the Court might have passed a different sentence. The trial judge has seen the prisoner and heard his history and any witness to character he may have chosen to call. It is only when a sentence appears to err in principle that this Court will alter it. If a sentence is excessive or inadequate to such an extent as to satisfy this Court that when it was passed there was a failure to apply the right principles, then this Court will intervene.”

Per ADETOKUNBO ADEGBOYEGA ADEMOLA, JSC in ADEYEYE V. THE STATE (1968) LCER-472(SC) (Pp 2 – 3, Paras A – A) #