Justice Arnie Joof, JA, as she then was, concluded in the lead judgment of the lower court that "in the instant case, that is not the nature of the complaint" and therefore found that the appellant had "not circumstances." made ·out any case to warrant ... interference in the The same principles are equally applicable whether the exercise of discretion forms the basis of a decision or a sentence, as in this case. It is obvious from the sole ground in this appeal that the only complaint is that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the lower court is "harsh and excessive "in the circumstances of this case, and"not, as stated, "having regard to the Appellant's antecedents," of which there is no r evidence. , What Counsel for I the Appellant regards as the "Appellant's antecedents" are matters really concerning the ' f1 ., I I •II character of the Appellant, which Counsel qrgues ought, to have been considered by the ll • trial judge. I,IIUIIIIIIIIIn· IIIII 11111, 'IIlli' h, .. ' . i• I' ' .. It seems to me that the matters 'touching on the Appellant's character, as d1st1lled from both the plea in mitigation at the trial court and the Appellant's briefs in the lower court • 'I llllll and this Court are as follo'<:'s: . Ifill ,. II It, •r.l •I. ih ' The Appellant is a first time offender and a young man; A. •tllllliJI' , B. •, lltiJI!l ' lotlllit• i;-ie was involved lin1 the running of a Skills Centre as a tailor, and the training .: 'Il lllh of''I yquh til 1111; g people i_n,the community; II dllll'lltW'' 1 , 11 11. 11 : II f lilt II :11 1 ( . I C. 1 llll . He was the IJread winner of his family; and <i: : lllllllllih lllli!h J?.'J"I :· H shown remorse and repentance. 1 tlh These are the matters which the Appellant's Counsel argues ought to have been given due 1,. nsideration by the trial judge in imposing sentence. SC NO. 212012- NFAMARA SAIDYKHAN VS THE STATE- 7rH MA\'7015 Page I8