[2022] KEHC 10431 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate expressly stated on record that the period spent in remand custody was considered during sentencing. This satisfied the requirements of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellate court, upon review, concluded that there was no error or omission by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 10431 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Michael Aura; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E058 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Procedure, Remand Custody Credit, Appeals Against Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Aura
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court failed to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding credit for time spent in custody.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and properly considered the period spent in remand custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate expressly stated on record that the period spent in remand custody was considered during sentencing. This satisfied the requirements of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellate court, upon review, concluded that there was no error or omission by the trial court in this regard. Consequently, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed, affirming the original conviction and sentence.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Aura v Republic (Criminal Appeal E058 & E060 of 2022 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEHC 10431 (KLR) (Crim) (21 June 2022) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 10431 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Criminal
Criminal Appeal E058 & E060 of 2022 (Consolidated)
LN Mutende, J
June 21, 2022
Between
Michael Aura
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an Appeal arising from the original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 1265 of 2014 at Chief Magistrate’s Court Makadara by Hon. Stephen Jalang’o – SRM on 15th December, 2017. )
Judgment
1. Michael Aura, was arraigned following allegations of having defiled a child aged fifteen (15) years.
2. He was taken through full trial, found guilty, convicted and sentenced to serve ten (10) years imprisonment.
3. Aggrieved by the sentence, he appealed. He contended that the trial court failed to comply with Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
4. The alluded to provision of the law provides that:Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code (Cap. 63) every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.Provided that where the person sentenced under subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.
5. An appellate court is called upon to re-consider a fresh what transpired at trial bearing in mind the fact of having not had the opportunity of seeing what happened then come to an independent conclusion.
6. With this in mind I have re-looked at the record of the trial court which is very clear the learned trial Magistrate stated thus:“I have considered the mitigation by the accused, the time spent in remand…..”
7. It is apparent that the trial court took into account the period spent in remand custody by the applicant as required by Section 333(2) of the CPC.
8. Therefore, the appeal is bereft of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI, THIS 21STDAY OF JUNE, 2022. L. N. MUTENDEJUDGEIN THE PRESENCE OF:AppellantMs. Ntabo - DPPCourt Assistant - Mutai