His lawyer, Alice Akello Latigo, told the court that Phillips was a first-time offender and was about 30 years old at the time of conviction. She argued that the sentence failed to adequately consider his prospects of rehabilitation.
The Court of Appeal has reduced the 35-year prison sentence imposed on a man convicted of aggravated defilement of a 13-year-old girl to 30 years, ruling that the original punishment was manifestly harsh and excessive.
The court, however, deducted one year, two months and 28 days the convict had spent on remand, leaving him with an effective sentence of 28 years, nine months and three days, reckoned from the date of his conviction.
In a judgment delivered at Gulu on October 13, 2026, Justices Eva Luswata, Asa Mugenyi and Musa Ssekaana allowed an appeal by Orach Phillips, who had challenged the sentence imposed by the High Court in Kitgum.
Phillips was convicted of aggravated defilement on May 4, 2016, by High Court judge Margaret Mutonyi and sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment.
The offence occurred on February 1, 2015, at Kal Central A Village in Lamwo district, where Phillips was found to have sexually abused the girl while knowing that he was HIV-positive, thereby exposing her to the risk of contracting the virus.
In his appeal, Phillips argued that the trial judge had failed to properly account for the time he spent on remand before his conviction. He also contended that the sentence was excessively harsh and disproportionate to the circumstances of the case.
His lawyer, Alice Akello Latigo, told the court that Phillips was a first-time offender and was about 30 years old at the time of conviction. She argued that the sentence failed to adequately consider his prospects of rehabilitation.
The defence asked the appellate court to substitute the 35-year sentence with the period he had already served, which counsel said would warrant his release.
However, Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo, representing the prosecution, opposed the appeal, arguing that the trial judge had acted within the law and that the sentence was justified by the gravity of the offence.
The prosecution submitted that Phillips had knowingly exposed a young girl to the risk of HIV infection, an aggravating circumstance that warranted a severe punishment.
In resolving the appeal, the justices examined whether the trial judge had properly considered the period Phillips spent on remand and whether the sentence was excessive in light of the circumstances.
The court observed that the trial judge had expressly stated that the 35-year sentence included the period spent on remand, although she had not calculated and deducted the period mathematically.
The justices held that the sentence was not illegal on that ground, noting that the trial judge had indicated that the remand period had been considered.
However, the appellate court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider mitigating factors before imposing the sentence, focusing instead on the aggravating circumstances.
The justices said sentencing courts must weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors to ensure that punishment is proportionate, fair and consistent with established sentencing principles.
They also considered sentences imposed in comparable aggravated defilement cases, observing that although similar offences may attract different sentences, courts must ensure consistency and proportionality.
In determining the appropriate punishment, the court considered that Phillips was a first-time offender, had six dependants and had sought leniency.
However, the justices also noted that he had denied committing the offence throughout the trial, had not pleaded guilty and had threatened the victim during the crime, causing her psychological harm.
The court further considered the victim’s age and the fact that Phillips knew both that she was a child and that he was HIV-positive.
The justices said these circumstances justified a severe custodial sentence, but concluded that 35 years’ imprisonment was excessive in view of the failure to consider the mitigating factors adequately.
The court consequently substituted the original sentence with 30 years’ imprisonment and deducted the period spent on remand between February 7, 2015, and May 4, 2016.
The appeal was allowed only in respect of the sentence. The conviction for aggravated defilement was not overturned.
