[2017] KEHC 6161 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the sentence or proceedings as required under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Although the sentence imposed by the trial court was below the statutory minimum, the applicant, being the moving party,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6161 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Danson Muriithi Ireri; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 1 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing Principles, Criminal Revision, Sexual Offences Act, Minimum Sentences
- 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
Danson Muriithi Ireri
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was lawful under the Sexual Offences Act.
- 2 Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 3 Whether the applicant's reformation and family circumstances justify a reduction or alteration of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the sentence or proceedings as required under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Although the sentence imposed by the trial court was below the statutory minimum, the applicant, being the moving party, could not benefit from a revision that would increase his sentence. The court therefore declined to disturb the sentence and dismissed the application for revision, holding that the conditions for revision had not been satisfied.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1 OF 2016
DANSON MURIITHI IRERI........................................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.............RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant seeks for revision of sentence of ten years imprisonment imposed on him by Principal Magistrate Siakago on 17/07/2012 upon conviction on the offence of defilement of a child contrary to Section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act N. 3 of 2006.
2. The grounds supporting the application are that he has now reformed after serving about half the sentence. He has also undergone vocational training courses in prison for Mason Grade II and III whose certificates he has attached.
3. The applicant also claims that his prolonged stay in prison will have an adverse effect to the welfare of his family. His prayer is for conversion of the remaining prison term to a non-custodial sentence or to review the whole sentence downwards.
4. In this case, the complainant was aged 16 years at the time of the offence. Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(4) of the Act is applicable to this case. The sentence provided in Section 8(4) is imprisonment for not less than 15 years.
5. The applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment which is not within the law. The section gives a minimum sentence of not less than fifteen (15) years which the court ought to prescribe in compliance with the law. The learned magistrate failed to comply as required. However, since the applicant is the one who moved the court in way of revision, this court will leave the sentence undisturbed.
6. The applicant has not faulted the magistrate as having committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in his finding, sentence or order which is the condition required to be established before revision can be done in tandem with the provisions of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. The offence of defilement is a very serious offence and it provides for a minimum sentence which the magistrate did not mete out. It noted that the applicant has already served half that sentence.
8. I find that the conditions under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code have not been satisfied.
9. The application is therefore not merited and it is dismissed accordingly.
DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2017.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE