[2020] KEHC 8771 (KLR)
The High Court found that the original sentences imposed by the trial court were lawful and lenient in light of the statutory maximums. However, considering the appellant's youth, first offender status, lack of serious injuries to the complainant, and mitigation presented, the court exercised its discretion to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8771 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Collins Otieno Otieno; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 81 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence After Withdrawal of Appeal Against Conviction
- Outcome
- sentence reduced on appeal
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Robbery With Violence, Mitigation, First Offender, Resentencing, Trial Court Discretion
- 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
Collins Otieno Otieno
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Sentence After Withdrawal of Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for robbery with violence and possession of suspected stolen goods was lawful and appropriate.
- 2 Whether there were sufficient grounds to interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in sentencing.
- 3 Whether the appellant's mitigation and circumstances warranted reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the original sentences imposed by the trial court were lawful and lenient in light of the statutory maximums. However, considering the appellant's youth, first offender status, lack of serious injuries to the complainant, and mitigation presented, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence for robbery with violence from 20 years to 12 years imprisonment, to be calculated from the original sentencing date. The court found no error in the trial court's exercise of discretion but opted for further leniency based on the appellant's circumstances and acknowledgment of guilt.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced on appeal
Orders
- The sentence for robbery with violence is reduced to twelve (12) years imprisonment, to be calculated from 8.11.2019.
- The sentence for possession of suspected stolen goods remains at six (6) months imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT SIAYA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2019
COLLINS OTIENO OTIENO ............................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.........................................................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal against Conviction and Sentence in judgment delivered on 8. 11. 2019 in Bondo Principal Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case No. 578 of 2018 before Hon. E.N. Wasike – Senior Resident Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant filed this appeal challenging both conviction and sentence but at the hearing hereof today, he has applied and had the appeal against conviction withdrawn. He now urges the court to consider reducing for him the sentence imposed.
2. On Sentence, I observe that the Appellant was sentenced to serve 20 years imprisonment in Count 1 for Robbery with Violence whereas in Count 2 of having suspected stolen goods he was sentenced to serve 6 months imprisonment
3. The Sentences meted out on the Appellant are lawful and lenient considering the maximum death sentence for the offence of Robbery with Violence and on a lenient side it could have been life imprisonment. In Count 2, the Appellant was sentenced to serve six months imprisonment. The offence is a misdemeanor and the sentence was lawful and lenient as the general punishment for misdemeanors in Section 36 of the Penal Code is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two (2) years with a fine or with both. Six months imprisonment was therefore lenient.
4. The Appellant in the trial Court only asked for leniency and a shorter sentence, in mitigation. Sentencing is in the discretion of the trial Court. There is nothing on record to show that the trial Court exercised wrongly his discretion in sentencing or that he took into account irrelevant factors or that he failed to take into account relevant factors and circumstances of the offence.
5. The Appellant is said to have been a first offender and he has mitigated further, asking this Court for leniency and submitting that he was influenced by bad friends and that he will not repeat the offence. He says he was unmarried, is an orphan and he has enrolled in prison training as a carpenter. There is no proof but the Appellant having at this appeal stage withdrawn his appeal against conviction, he acknowledges that he committed the offence with which he was convicted and sentenced. He has also saved this Court time of considering the merits of the appeal against conviction.
6. He is a young man aged about 27 years old. The Complainant did not sustain serious injuries, only described as harm. I exercise discretion and reduce the prison sentence imposed on him by the trial Court and resentence the Appellant to serve twelve (12) years in prisons to be calculated from the date he was sentenced on 8. 11. 2019 as he absconded bond terms.
7. Orders accordingly.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Siaya this 27th January, 2020.
R. E. ABURILI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
The Appellant in person
Mr. Okachi SPPC for the Respondent
CA: Brenda and Modestar