[2017] KEHC 4160 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant to four years imprisonment for handling stolen goods. The sentence was well within the statutory maximum of fourteen years, and the trial court properly considered the appellant's previous convictions for stock theft and burglary. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4160 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Dennis Muthee; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 37 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Handling Stolen Goods, Exercise of Discretion, Previous Convictions
- 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
Dennis Muthee
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in exercising its discretion in sentencing the appellant to four years imprisonment for handling stolen goods.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive or improper given the appellant's previous convictions.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant to four years imprisonment for handling stolen goods. The sentence was well within the statutory maximum of fourteen years, and the trial court properly considered the appellant's previous convictions for stock theft and burglary. The appellate court reiterated that its power to interfere with sentencing is limited to cases where there is a clear error in the exercise of discretion, which was not demonstrated here. Consequently, there was no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appellant's appeal against sentence is dismissed.
- The trial court's sentence of four years imprisonment is confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2016
DENNIS MUTHEE …………….….……APPELLANT
Versus
REPUBLIC……………………………RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence by Hon. F W Macharia –Principal Magistrate dated 17th April 2015 in Nanyuki Chief Magistrate Court Criminal Case No. 592 of 2013)
JUDGMENT
1. DENNIS MUTHEEhas filed this appeal against his 4 years jail sentence on being convicted of the offence handling stolen goods Contrary to Section 322 (2) of the Penal Code.
2. The appellant relied on two grounds, in his appeal. He submitted that he was now reformed and that he has learnt a trade in metal work which he wishes to make use of in the community.
3. I will be guided, in my consideration of this appeal by the persuasive case of Papua New Guinea namely ACTING PUBLIC PROSECUTOR =VR= KONIS HAHA [1981] PNGLR 205 where it was stated:
“…this court does not have an unfettered discretion to vary the sentence appealed against and will only do so where it is clearly shown that the trial Judge has fallen into error in the exercise of his discretion”.
4. Another useful case to consider is CRASSEN =V= THE KING [1936]HCA 42 the court held:
“The jurisdiction to revise such discretion must be exercised in accordance with recognised principles. It is not enough that the member of the court would themselves have imposed a less or different sentence or that they think the sentence over-severe. There must be some reason for regarding the discretion confident to the court of first instance as improperly exercised”.
5. The limits set out in the above cases are the ones I should operate within, in this appeal.
6. On the trial court convicting the appellant of the offence of handling stolen goods the prosecution informed the trial court that the appellant had previously been convicted of the offence of stock theft whereby he was sentence to three years imprisonment and was also convict of the offence of burglary and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The trial court, therefore, as it considered the sentence of the offence of handling stolen goods it was dealing with one who had previous convictions.
7. The sentence set out under Section 322 (2) of the Penal Code is one not exceeding fourteen years imprisonment. The appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment. In my view the trial court did not fall in error in exercising its discretion when it sentence the appellant to four years imprisonment. There is therefore no reason to interfere with the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in sentencing the appellant.
8. For the above reason the appellant’s appeal against sentence is dismissed. The trial court’s sentence is confirmed.
Dated and Delivered at Nanyuki this 26th JULY 2017
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Coram
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Njue/Maria Stella
Appellant: Dennis Muthee
For state: ………………………………….
Language: ……………………………………
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE