[2015] KEHC 8063 (KLR)
Although the sentence imposed was within the statutory limit, the court found that the trial magistrate failed to adequately consider the appellant's status as a first offender, her young age, her plea of guilty, and the best interests of her young child. The appellate court held that these mitigating factors...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 8063 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Caroline Shiranga Anzenga; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 144 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_partially_allowed
- Judges
- AW Macharia
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Possession of Forgery Materials, Mitigating Factors, First Offender, Child Welfare in Sentencing
- 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
Caroline Shiranga Anzenga
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant, a first offender, was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court properly considered mitigating factors such as the appellant's age, status as a first offender, and the welfare of her young child.
Ratio Decidendi
Although the sentence imposed was within the statutory limit, the court found that the trial magistrate failed to adequately consider the appellant's status as a first offender, her young age, her plea of guilty, and the best interests of her young child. The appellate court held that these mitigating factors warranted a more lenient sentence. Given that the appellant had already served two and a half years in prison, the court determined that this period constituted sufficient punishment in the circumstances and ordered her immediate release unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
appeal_partially_allowed
Orders
- The appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent that the period already served is deemed sufficient punishment.
- The appellant is to be set free unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2013
CAROLINE SHIRANGA ANZENGA…..……………..….............................................…..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………………………….....................................……..RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kibera Criminal Case No. 2643 of 2013 delivered by Hon. J. Osoro Juma (Mrs) SPM.)
JUDGMENT
Caroline Shirinda Anzenga, the Appellant herein was charged with the offence of being in possession of papers for forgery contrary to Section 367(a) of the Penal Code. Particulars of the offence were that on the 1st day of August, 2013 in Gataka village within Ongata Rongai within Kajiado County, without authority knowingly had in her custody 6,758 papers intended to resemble and pass as special paper as is provided and used in making US currency notes amounting to 675,800 US Dollar Bills.
The Appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty and was sentenced to serve five years imprisonment. She has appealed only against the sentence. In a Memorandum of Appeal filed on 27th August, 2013, she was aggrieved that she was a first offender and yet she was not given a more lenient sentence, that she was young then aged only 22
years, she had a seven months old baby in prison who was unlikely to get the best upbringing in the prison and that the sentence was harsh in the circumstances. In court, she submitted that she wanted to go to her rural home to help her grandmother.
Learned State Counsel Miss Njuguna did not oppose the appeal, submitting that the Appellant was a first offender who had a two years and 11 months old baby and in any case, she had already served two and a half years in prison.
I have accordingly considered the appeal and the respective submissions. Under Section 367(a) of the Penal Code, any person who, without lawful authority or excuse makes, uses or knowingly has in his custody or possession any paper intended to resemble and pass as a special paper such as is provided and used for making any bank note or currency note is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years. In that case, the sentence imposed on the Appellant was lawful.
However, given that she was a first offender and she pleaded guilty thus saving the court time, the trial court ought to have considered a more lenient sentence. Furthermore, it is important to note that as at the time of conviction, he had a seven months old baby who has now turned 2 years and 11 months. In the best interest of the upbringing of the child, it is only just that the appeal succeeds. I consider that he has already served two and a half years of the imprisonment term which I consider as sufficient punishment in the circumstances.
In the result, the appeal partially succeeds with the order that the Appellant has served sufficient sentence and I order that she be and is hereby set free unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED and DELIVERED this 23rd DAY of DECEMBER, 2015
G. W. NGENYE – MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Appellant present in person
2. No apperance for the Respondent