[2013] KEHC 1261 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial magistrate was unduly influenced by an exaggerated medical classification of the injuries and a probation report labeling the appellant as homeless, which led to a misdirection in sentencing. The injuries, while serious, did not amount to maim or permanent incapacity as classified...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1261 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Baabu Miriti; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 27a of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Grievous Harm, Appeal Against Sentence, Remorse and Rehabilitation
- 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
Baabu Miriti
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 8 years imprisonment for grievous harm was excessive and harsh in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate misdirected himself by relying on exaggerated medical classification and the probation report in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial magistrate was unduly influenced by an exaggerated medical classification of the injuries and a probation report labeling the appellant as homeless, which led to a misdirection in sentencing. The injuries, while serious, did not amount to maim or permanent incapacity as classified by the doctor. The sentence of 8 years was therefore excessive and harsh. The court substituted the sentence with 5 years imprisonment, considering the unprovoked nature of the attack but also the appellant's remorse and prospects for rehabilitation.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The sentence of 8 years imprisonment imposed on the appellant is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment instead.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27A OF 2011
LESIIT, J
BAABU MIRITI………………………………………...APPELLANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC………………………………………….RESPONDENT.
(From the original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 504 of 2010 in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Meru by R. M. Kimingi Chief Magistrate)
JUDGEMENT
The Appellant was convicted of one count of grievous Harm contrary to section 234 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. I noted that the Appellant had been convicted with one KENNETH KIMATHI who does not seem to have filed any appeal.
The Appellant was aggrieved by the sentence and therefore filed this appeal. He has pleaded eight grounds in his filed petition namely:
That I pleaded guilty of the offence.
I did not waste the precious time of the court.
That I have sworn and touched my both ears with my hands that I’ll never go back again to the field of alcohol.
That all that happened between us was caused by drunkenness which now feels to hate it and I swear never again be seen being drunk as experience has already taught me.
That this honorable court be pleased to set aside alter or reverse the sentence awarded by the lower court.
That I pray for leniency for forgiveness as I am so remorseful for the deed.
That the sentence meted on me is excessive and too harsh.
That the honorable high court gives any orders as the interest of justice will demand.
In his submissions in court the Appellant urged the court to find he was remorseful for the offence that he had reformed, that he had undergone Carpentry Training with which he could be useful to the society. He urged that drunkenness was the reason for the offence and pleaded never to go back to same.
The State opposed this appeal. Ms Mwangi, learned State Counsel represented the State in this appeal. Counsel urged that the Appellant was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment and that it was deterrent sentence
I have considered the Appellants appeal against the sentence. Looking at the offence I note that the doctor classified cuts on the scalp measuring 5 cm, on left check measuring 6 cm, on both legs measuring 5 cm and blunt injury to the right eye as maim. With due respect to the doctor, there is a great measure of exaggeration. There was no injury of a permanent nature or an injury capable of creating an inability on the complainant. The complainant suffered deep cut or lacerations. The classification is not justified in my view.
The learned trial magistrate sentenced the Appellant and his co-accused to 8 years imprisonment. The court noted.
The gravity of the offence for which each accused has committed (sic) and each accused appear not to be remorseful. Accused persons have no fixed abode.None custodial sentence is also not recommended. The court considers (sic) a deterrent custodial sentence suitable and sentence each accused to 8 years imprisonment.
From the statement of Learned trial magistrate it appears that the sentence was informed by report from Probation and the classification of the injury complainant suffered according to the doctors. The latter was a gross exaggeration. The Probation Officer’s Report on its part declared the Appellant and his co-accused street urchins or homeless. None of these would justify a deterrent sentence.
I find the learned trial magistrate was influenced by the two reports and from my observations above the same led to misdirection on the sentence suitable and to a harsh sentence. For the above reason I allow Appellants appeal against sentence and set it aside. In substitution I sentence Appellant to five years imprisonment as attack was unprovoked and the motive was unknown.
For Appellant’s co-accused under ss354, 362 and 364. I set aside sentence of 8years imprisonment imposed upon him, Kenneth Kimathi and in substitution impose a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.
Those are the orders of the court.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.
J. LESIIT
JUDGE1.