Omwoyo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E016 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12800 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment)

Omwoyo v Republic (Criminal Appeal E016 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12800 (KLR) (7 August 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12800 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Kisii Criminal Appeal E016 of 2025 AM Okutoyi, J August 7, 2026 Between Charles Mochama Omwoyo Appellant and The Republic Respondent (Being an appeal from the conviction and sentence in Kisii Magistrate Court Criminal Case Number 708 of 2020 delivered on 9th May 2025 by Hon. J Nyariki SRM) Judgment Introduction 1.The Appellant, Charles Mochama Omwoyo on 3rd June 2020 was charged with the following offences as subsequently amended;a.Counts I–V: The Appellant was charged with the offence of Robbery with violence contrary to Section 295 as read with Section 296(2) of the Penal Code, particulars being that on the nights of 23rd and 24th March 2020 at [Particulars Withheld], Bogiakumu location within Kisii South Sub-County in Kisii County, jointly with others not before the court while armed with dangerous weapons, namely pangas, modified rungus with sharp nails, somali knives, big hammers and dressed in jungle jackets (similar to those of military officers) robbed Mary Nyabiango Oruaro, Joseph Mabeya, Florence Kemuma, Eunice Kemuma, and Stella Nyaboke each and separately involving cash, phones, and household items stolen with actual force used on the victims.b.Count VI & VII: The Appellant was charged with the offence of Defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(3)&(4) of the Sexual Offences Act, particulars being that on the nights of 23rd and 24th March 2020 at [Particulars Withheld], Bogiakumu location within Kisii South Sub-County in Kisii County, jointly with others not before the Court while armed with dangerous weapons, namely pangas, modified rungus with sharp nails, somali knives, big hammers and dressed in jungle jackets (similar to those of military officers) intentionally and unlawfully caused his penis to penetrate the vagina of D.M and C.B, children aged 13 and 16 years respectively without their consent.c.Count VIII & IX: The Appellant was charged with the offence of Rape contrary to Section 3(1)(a)(c)(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, with an alternative counts of committing an indecent act with an adult contrary to Section (11)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act, particulars being that on the nights of 23rd and 24th March 2020 at [Particulars Withheld], Bogiakumu location within Kisii South Sub-County in Kisii County, jointly with others not before the Court while armed with dangerous weapons, namely pangas, modified rungus with sharp nails, somali knives, big hammers and dressed in jungle jackets (similar to those of military officers) intentionally and unlawfully caused his penis to penetrate the vagina of FK and EK without their consent. 2.When the Appellant was arraigned before the trial court, he pleaded not guilty to all the charges. After a full trial, he was convicted on the Count I – Count V as per the amended charge sheet, all being the offences of robbery with violence contrary to Section 295 as read with Section 296(2) of the Penal Code and Count VIII and Count IX on the offence of rape contrary to Section 3(1)(a)(c)3 of the Sexual Offences Act. He was acquitted on Count VI and Count VII on the offence of defilement contrary to section 8 (1) & (4) of the Sexual Offences Act. 3.The trial court subsequently sentenced the Appellant to consecutively serve 30 years imprisonment for each count of robbery with violence and 10 years imprisonment for each count of rape to be served consecutively less the time spent in custody. 4.Aggrieved by both the conviction and sentence, the Appellant preferred the appeal herein vide an undated Petition of Appeal. In his Eight grounds the Appellant states that, the trial court erred in law and fact by failing to find that the witnesses were untrustworthy, and that none of them could identify him and equally the circumstances could not allow a positive identification. That the trial court erred in law and fact by finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, weighty enough to sustain a conviction, thus the conviction and the harsh sentenced passed was improper. Lastly, the learned trial court erred in dismissing his defence. The Appellant urged this Court to quash the conviction, set aside the sentence of 165 years and set him free. 5.Upon the appeal being admitted, on 21st May 2026 parties appeared before the honorable court. This court directed the appeal to be canvassed by way of written submissions, the Appellant had filed his written submissions dated 24th February 2026. The respondent requested to be served with the record of appeal, and subsequently granted 14 days to file its submissions. None was filed at the time of writing this judgment. 6.To start with, this court sitting as a first appellate court has to recap and appreciate the evidence adduced at the trial court. Prosecution Case 7.The prosecution called a total of ten witnesses. PW1 testified severally and equally on recall that on the night of 23rd –24th March 2020 at around 11:50 am, six armed strangers broke into her house at Ombado Estate, took her back to her room with her child, demanded money, slapped her, forced her M-Pesa PIN and transferred her funds Kshs 12,680/- to a number belonging to one Hassan, then took her to her kiosk wherein they took cash. She recognized the Appellant, as there was light. No identification parade was conducted. 8.PW2, PW1's daughter, aged 18 years, a form 3 student, testified on the night of 23rd –24th March 2020 she woke to find an intruder in the house armed with a panga and hammer; the assailants demanded money and phones, transferred funds from her mother’s phone, and one of them raped her. She saw the assailants in her mother's lit house but stated on cross-examination that she did not identify anyone during the assault itself and did not record recognizing his voice in her statement; on re-examination she maintained she saw the Appellant demanding money. 9.PW3, testified that she woke to find six people forcing their way into their house, tying her and her husband, demanding money, and threatening to cut her husband with a panga. She identified the Appellant as the one who raped her, using security lighting and a torch shone in her face, and stated he was the ringleader and most outspoken. 10.PW4 Nyaata Evans Mosota a clinical officer based Iyabe Level 4 Hospital. She testified that she examined PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW9 days after the incident; findings indicated no tears or lacerations, some white/whitish discharge, PM cells on urinalysis in several, broken hymen and clitoris for PW2, and she produced the P3 forms and treatment notes as exhibits. 11.PW5 testified that she woke to banging and a broken window; assailants in askari uniforms carried pangas, tied up her father, demanded money and robbed him. She and her sister were taken to a room and raped. She identified the Appellant by torchlight and security light through a ventilation hole, stating he was the first to enter and repeatedly flashed a torch on himself while threatening them. She testified that the Appellant was the one who raped her mother and that she was raped by a different assailant. 12.PW6 while testifying corroborated the break in, being tied up and beaten by the Appellant, having his wife raped by the Appellant in his presence while others raped his daughters. He identified the accused in the dock, since the accused had no beard at the time of the offence. 13.PW7 a neighbour testified that she responded to screams, found the house in disarray and PW2 crying that she had been raped; she did not witness the attackers herself. 14.PW8 Sgt James Makobi, a DCI liason officer attached to Safaricom Limited produced cellphone/M-Pesa call-data and IMEI records showing the movement of stolen phones and transferred funds through several SIM registrations including Hassan Kariuki, Paul Machongo, Doris Ombati, Paul Ndungu, eventually tracing back to the accused's home area in Gesusu and his wife Doris Ombati. 15.PW9 a student who was raped during the incident; she did not see her own attacker but identified the Appellant as a notorious member of the gang who kept bragging that nothing could be done to him. She attended an identification parade and identified the Appellant there. 16.PW10 PC Peter Dan Maloba, the investigating officer testified at length on the detailed investigation across three places robbed on the night of 23rd –24th March 2020, the tracing and triangulation of stolen phones and M-Pesa transfers to the Appellant’s household, the arrest of the Appellant in Molo Nakuru County on 17th May 2020 together with five accomplices. The Officer testified that the Appellant refused to participate in an identification parade because he said he had already been shown on television and social media. He also produced an inventory of items recovered from the Appellant’s home, signed by the Appellant’s wife. 17.At the close of the prosecution case, the trial court rendered its ruling. The trial court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case, the Appellant was placed on his defence, Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code was explained to the Appellant, he elected to give unsworn testimony. Defence Case 18.DW1 Charles Mochama Omoyo, the Appellant gave unsworn testimony. He stated that on 15th March 2020, he had spent the day collecting timber by the river with six others and tending his cattle, and went home afterward. He said police came to his home that night looking for his brother, Dominic Ouko, and that he told them his name was Charles and that his brother was in Kisii. He was nonetheless arrested and taken first to Molo Central Police Station and then to Kisii Central Police Station. He gave officers contacts to reach his brother but they could not reach him, and he was ultimately charged because he could not produce his brother. 19.After the close of the defence case, the Appellant was found guilty and convicted on five counts of the offence of robbery with violence two counts of the offence of rape. The trial court called for mitigation and subsequently sentenced the Appellant to a cumulative sentence of 170 years less the time served in custody. Submissions 20.The Appellant in his submissions opposes the appeal on two central issues: whether the ten prosecution witnesses were credible and their evidence safe to rely upon, and whether the offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt with due compliance with the law. The Appellant separately argues that even if a guilt was established, a sentence of 165 years is manifestly excessive and should have been ordered to run concurrently rather than consecutively. 21.In an account to account detail, the Appellants analyzes the prosecution witnesses highlighting the doubts and inconsistencies. On PW1 the Appellant argues her evidence was malicious and fabricated; that she could not explain how she identified the Appellant, no description was given to police, and no identification parade was held. He argues her identification was pure dock identification, which should not sustain a conviction. That PW2 initially told the court she did not know identify the accused, but changed her evidence upon recall and re-examined to say she saw him, a contradiction the Appellant argues that it renders her testimony unreliable, and questions the prosecution's motive in recalling her. 22.On PW3 he submits that her account of seeing him via security light is inconsistent with PW6's evidence that there was no working ventilation/lighting inside the house; argues that absent DNA evidence, her rape allegation is mere exaggeration. He cites Section 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Boniface Kyalo Mwololo v Republic [2016] KEHC 6928 (KLR) for the proposition that a court may order forensic/DNA testing in sexual offence cases, implying its absence undermines the conviction. He argues PW3 and PW6 husband and wife, same household gave irreconcilably contradictory accounts, and invokes Richard Aspella v Republic, Appeal No. 45 of 1981 (CA), and Ramkrishana Denkerai Pandya v Republic, Appeal No. 6 of 1990 (EACA 93), for the principle that contradictory statements cannot both be believed and that contradicted evidence makes it difficult to tell truth from falsehood. 23.The Appellant proceeds to submits that PW5 evidence in chief that she was raped but that the Appellant did not rape her; he questions how she could identify him at all absent light in the house and argues her courtroom identification was dock identification. Similarly, on PW6 he argues his account that he was tied and forced face down when his wife was raped contradicts PW3's account, that he watched; challenges the claim that he recognized him by his walking style, arguing that is was never properly tested and implausible at night; also argues PW6 confirmed on cross-examination that the bulbs were broken, it was dark, and there was no ventilation letting in light, thus contradicting PW3's claim of visibility via security lighting. 24.On PW7 the Appellant characterizes her evidence as mere hearsay, since she only arrived after the attackers had left and was informed of events by others. The Appellant disputes the medical evidence stating that, the clinical officer’s findings on no tears/lacerations, clean discharge, vaginas were okay showed the complainants were not in fact raped or defiled, and that the sexual assault allegations were fabricated to strengthen the case. 25.As to whether he was positively identified by PW9, he submits that PW9 testified that she identified him at the police station, yet also testified to identifying him via an identification parade, and argues she was the only witness supposedly subjected to a parade, which is inconsistent with the rest of the prosecution case. 26.Lastly, on PW10, the investigation officer, he submits that his investigation was shoddy, unprofessional, and failed constitutional standards. He questions the propriety of police using tear gas at the Appellant's home. He highlights an inconsistency in PW10's account of who opened the door to his home between the wife and the mother. The Appellant argues no evidence actually links him to the offence. On the recovered phone, he invokes the doctrine of recent possession via Polycarp Ochieng Obala & Another v Republic, Kisumu CA Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2011, arguing a mobile phone, an item that changes hands quickly, found at his home cannot safely found a conviction absent proof of truly recent possession. 27.In summation, the Appellant contends the entire prosecution case is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies stemming from inadequate investigation, that the Safaricom call-data/M-Pesa records nowhere implicates him directly, and that identification was unsafe throughout dock identification, absence of parades, contradictory accounts of lighting. He resoundingly prayed that the appeal be allowed in its entirety. Analysis and determination 28.This being a first appeal, the duty of the court is to analyze and re-evaluate afresh the evidence adduced before the trial court and draw its own independent conclusions. In the case of Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32, East Africa Court of Appeal put this duty as follows:“An Appellant on a first appeal is entitled to expect the evidence as a whole to be submitted to a fresh and exhaustive examination (Pandya v R, [1957] EA 336) and to the appellate court's own decision on the evidence. The first appellate court must itself weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own conclusions. (Shantilal M Ruwala v R, [1957] EA 570). It is not the function of a first appellate court merely to scrutinize the evidence to see if there was some evidence to support the lower court's findings and conclusions; it must make its own findings and draw its own conclusions. Only then can it decide whether the magistrate's findings should be supported. In doing so, it should make allowance for the fact that the trial court has had the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses, see Peters v Sunday Post, [1958] EA 424.” 29.Similarly, the Court of Appeal in the case of David Njuguna Wairimu v Republic (2010) eKLR stated that;“The duty of the first appellate court is to analyse and re-evaluate the evidence which was before the trial court and itself come to its own conclusions on that evidence without overlooking the conclusions of the trial court. There are instances where the first appellate court may, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, come to the same conclusions as those of the lower court. It may rehash those conclusions. We do not think there is anything objectionable in doing so, provided it is clear that the court has considered the evidence on the basis of the law and the evidence to satisfy itself on the correctness of the decision.” 30.I have at length read the Appellant’s submissions, given due consideration to the trial court’s proceedings and the record of appeal. The following issues arise for my determination: -i.Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubtii.Whether the sentence was harsh and excessive Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt 31.Having established the court's duty, the Appellant herein was charged with numerous offences. He was convicted on two clustered offences robbery with violence and rape, as particularized. This court will then proceed to address itself under the said clustered bands. 32.On Counts I–V, the Appellant was charged with the offence of Robbery with violence contrary to Section 295 as read with Section 296(2) of the Penal Code, particulars being that on the nights of 23rd and 24th March 2020 and in a burglary spree, armed to teeth, and in company of five accomplices, committed a series of robberies with violence while harming and threatening their victims. 33.This Court will now turn to the question as to what amounts to the offence of robbery with violence. Sections 295 and 296(2) of the Penal Code. Section 295 provides for what amounts to robbery with violence as follows: -“Any person who steals anything, and, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing it, uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain or retain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen or retained, is guilty of the felony termed robbery” 34.Further Section 296(2) and as read together with Section 295 of the Penal Code provides as follows: -“If the offender is armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument, or is in company with one or more other person or persons, or if, at or immediately after the time of robbery, he wounds, beats, strikes or uses any other personal violence to any person, he shall be sentenced to death.” 35.From the above, the ingredients of the robbery with violence are that the offender ought to be armed, in company in one or more persons and lastly harming, use of violence and/or threats to violence. These ingredients were reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Ingotsi & another v Republic [2021] KECA 60 (KLR) citing its previous decision in Oluoch v Republic [1985] KLR. 36.These elements should be coupled up with act of theft or otherwise robbing as held in Moneni Ngumbao Mangi v. Republic, CR APP No 141 of 2005 (Mombasa). The ingredients are disjunctive in nature as opposed to being conjunctive, the prosecution needs to prove only one element to sustain a conviction. This position was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal Dima Denge Dima & Others v Republic [2013] KECA 480 (KLR). 37.From the evidence re-evaluated the Appellant as PW6 & PW9 testifies that the Appellant was the one in lead, talking as much and threatening. From the prosecution case [Particulars Withheld] was terrorized on the night of 23rd and 24th March 2020 at two households and a shop were robbed, valuables were carted away, women and children were violently raped and defiled in turns. All this was done in a terror of the night, rainy and cold. As testified by the prosecution witnesses, the Appellant in company of at least five others were dressed in military fatigues armed with pangas, hammers, rungus and other crude weapons. In the robbery they even robbed additional pangas. Upon a search and a discovery, the jungle uniform, phone, simcards among other things was recovered at the Appellant’s home. 38.The trial court in its finding held that the prosecution’s evidence was cogent to prove robbery with violence. In this case the prosecution also proved the use of personal violence on the complainants. Again, the complainants testified that they suffered injuries including being tied, raped, raped and threatened with pangas. Lastly the Appellant was the one who led the gang of robbers and personally attacked the complainants. 39.In this case and in objection of commission of the offence, the Appellant’s main contention is that he was not identified whether through a positive identification and/or recognition, further he was not arrested on the scene. From the record, PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW5 each testified to specific and consistent sources of lights that afforded them an opportunity to observe the Appellant during the series of robberies. PW3, PW5 and PW6 in particular testified that the Appellant deliberately shone a torch on his own face while demanding money, which is a circumstance a trial court considered it as a positive recognition. 40.Whilst the Appellant objected the identification parade, it was not fatal as multiple independent witnesses as corroborated testified to his identity. I am guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Andrea Nahashon Mwarisha v Republic [2016] KECA 600 (KLR). Further, PW3, PW 5 and PW6 testified that they identified the Appellant when he kept on spotting his face with a torchlight and lastly PW5 confirming the Appellant's identity was corroborated by PW3 and PW5. 41.It is noteworthy that PW9 alone was subjected to a formal identification parade, while others relied on recognition, thus buttressing the identification both through recognition and identification. 42.The trial court in ascertaining if the Appellant was identified relied on R v Turnbull & Others [1976] 3 All ER 549 and consideration of the factors such as the length and circumstances of the observation, the lighting conditions, and the absence of material discrepancy between description and appearance and subsequently accepted the identifying witnesses' testimony. The trial court which had the advantage to examine the witnesses do not find any single discrepancy, considered against the weight of corroborating evidence led by PW1, PW3, PW6 and PW7, is sufficient to warrant a conviction on counts founded on other witnesses' direct and consistent testimony. 43.The centrality of all the witnesses' testimony, that the household was invaded by armed persons, that the Appellant was among them, and that the Appellant sexually assaulted PW3 remained consistent. I therefore find no basis to disturb the trial court's assessment of this evidence. 44.Having re-evaluated the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the charges of robbery with violence on Counts I to V. 45.As regard the second cluster of offences; rape, the prosecution established that the Appellant had sexual intercourse with PW3 and PW5 without their consent. 46.The Appellant asserts that the absence of tears or lacerations noted on genital examination, or the absence of DNA evidence, is fatal to the rape convictions. This Court notes that it is trite that the offence of rape may be proved by the oral evidence of the complainant alone, even in the absence of corroborating medical evidence, provided the court is satisfied as to penetration and absence of consent as held Republic v Oyier [1985] eKLR and Kassim Ali v Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2005 (Mombasa). The medical evidence herein was, indicating absence of injury is not inconsistent with rape, particularly where the complainants testified they did not physically resist for fear of further violence, a fear the trial court was entitled to find reasonable given the circumstances of an armed home invasion. 47.Upon independent evaluation of the trial record, this Court finds that on the count of rape of Counts VIII, the Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, on Count IX, this court having carefully reevaluated the evidence on record finds that the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence linking the Appellant to the offence of rape of PW5. Indeed, PW5 in her testimony though identified the Appellant as one of the attackers and one who raped PW3, her mother, testified that the Appellant did not rape her. This Court therefore finds the conviction against the Appellant on count IX is unsafe and cannot be allowed to stand. 48.The Appellant's defence of alibi was considered and properly rejected by the trial court against the weight of direct recognition evidence from multiple independent witnesses. I therefore find no merit in the appeal against conviction save for Count IX, and the same is hereby dismissed. Whether the sentence was harsh and excessive 49.As to whether the sentence to serve 30 years for each count of robbery with violence and 10 years for each of the two counts of rape is harsh and excessive. The trial court before meting out the sentence allowed the Appellant to mitigate, the trial court rendered a ruling in reference to sentencing before meting out the sentence. 50.The Appellant in this appeal is contesting the consecutive nature of the sentence, thus terms it as a 165 year sentence as aggregated pursuant to Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Appreciably, sentence for committing an offence of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code is death subject to mitigation as held in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR and that under Section 3(3) of the Sexual Offences Act, the minimum sentence is 10 years which can be enhanced to life imprisonment. 51.The Sentencing Policy Guidelines 2023 outlines that a sentence meted out must be proportionate to the offending conduct. This includes retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, restorative justice, community protection, denunciation, reconciliation and reintegration. The trial court was lenient enough to grant a 30-year sentence for an offence that would ordinarily attract a death sentence and a minimum possible sentence for the offence of rape. 52.As pertains to the appeal against the sentences to running concurrently, an appellate court can only interfere with the sentence if it is illegal or unlawful. The Eastern Africa Court of Appeal in Ogolla s/o Owuor vs Republic, [1954] EACA 270, pronounced itself on this issue as follows: -“The Court does not alter a sentence unless the trial Judge has acted upon wrong principles or overlooked some material factors”. To this, we would add a third criterion namely, “that the sentence is manifestly excessive in view of the circumstances of the case (R - v- Shershowsky (1912) CCA 28TLR 263)." See also Omuse - v- R (supra) while in the case of Shadrack Kipkoech Kogo - vs - R., Eldoret Criminal Appeal No.253 of 2003 the Court of Appeal stated thus:- sentence is essentially an exercise of discretion by the trial court and for this court to interfere it must be shown that in passing the sentence, the sentencing court took into account an irrelevant factor or that a wrong principle was applied or that short of these, the sentence itself is so excessive and therefore an error of principle must be interfered (see also Sayeka –vs- R. (1989 KLR 306)” 53.From the foregoing this court has to re-evaluated the sentence to see if the same was arrived at on a wrong principle, that the trial court overlooked some material factors and the same is manifestly excessive in the circumstances. As noted earlier the sentences were lenient taking consideration of all the factors. On the circumstances the same were warranted having in mind how the gang robbery was meted out inhumanely, violently and repeatedly. 54.The Court of Appeal in Peter Mbugua Kabui v Republic [2016] eKLR on the distinction of concurrent and consecutive sentences stated as follows:“As a general principle the practice is that if an accused person commits a series of offences at the same time in a single act/transaction concurrent sentence should be given. However, if separate and distinct offences are committed in different criminal transactions, even though the counts may be in one charge sheet and one trial, it is not illegal to mete out a consecutive term of imprisonment.” 55.In the present case, the offences were not committed at the same night and were in a series of home break. They were not in the same transaction and they occurred on two preceding dates. Furthermore, the acts complained of were perpetrated against different complainants. 56.This Court taking into account the aggravating circumstances in this case, the violent manner in which the offences were committed and the profound impact on multiple victims finds that trial court sentence imposed was lawful, proportionate and reflects the seriousness of the offences. I therefore find no error in principle or misdirection that would warrant interference by this Court. Disposition 57.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds only to the extent that the conviction on count IX is quashed and the sentence imposed on that particular count thereon set aside. 58.The appeal against conviction and sentencing on the remaining counts is hereby dismissed. The Conviction in those Counts is hereby affirmed and the sentences imposed thereon shall remain in force and shall run consecutively as ordered by the trial court. 59.The setting aside of the sentence on Count IX does not affect the lawful sentences imposed by the trial court on the remainder of the counts. 60.As such the sentence imposed by the trial court to run consecutively is affirmed with the reduction of the 10 years sentence for Count IX. JUDGMENT DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, SIGNED AND DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026ANNE M. OKUTOYIJUDGEIn the presence of:Charles Mochama Omwoyo Appellant in person from Kisii Prison.Mr. Njeru for the State.Ms. Mokeira- Court Assistant.