[2018] KEHC 8521 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court failed to consider two critical factors in sentencing: the appellant's guilty plea and the five months he had already spent in remand custody. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that time spent in custody before sentencing must be credited. The trial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8521 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Douglas Koome Kimathi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 65 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Period Credit, Guilty Plea, Theft Offences
- 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
Douglas Koome Kimathi
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in sentencing the appellant without considering his guilty plea and time spent in remand.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was excessive in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court failed to consider two critical factors in sentencing: the appellant's guilty plea and the five months he had already spent in remand custody. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that time spent in custody before sentencing must be credited. The trial court also did not explicitly acknowledge the guilty plea, which is a mitigating factor. Given these omissions, the High Court held that the sentence imposed was not appropriate and warranted interference. The appellate court therefore set aside the original sentence and substituted it with a sentence of imprisonment for the period already served, ordering the appellant's immediate...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside.
- The appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NANYUKI
CRIMINAL CASE APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2017
DOUGLAS KOOME KIMATHI …..…APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC …………………..…….RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence by Hon. L Mutai Chief Magistrate dated 17th March 2017 in Nanyuki Chief Magistrate Court Criminal Case No. 1496 of 2016)
JUDGMENT
1. DOUGLAS KOOME KIMATHI(the appellant) was charged, before the Nanyuki Chief Magistrate’s Court, with the Offence of theft of a motorcycle Contrary to Section 278A of the Penal Code. He pleaded guilty whereupon the trial court sentenced him to serve 2 ½ years in prison.
2. The facts narrated by the prosecution, before the trial court sentenced the appellant was that, the complainant had employed the appellant as a motor cycle rider. The appellant was so employed on 1st July 2016. On 9th October 2016 the appellant disappeared with the complainant’s motor cycle. The appellant was eventually arrested in Sagana area and the subject motor cycle was recovered.
3. After the trial court entered a guilty plea it invited the appellant to present his mitigation. The trial court’s record shows that the appellant offered no mitigation.
4. The trial court in sentencing had this to say:
“SENTENCE:
As accused is a first offender and although the stolen motorbike has since been recovered, It is clear that he is not remorseful that he committed the offence as charged. The offence is serious and a punishment called for, which punishment will serve as a lesson not only to the accused person but also to the other would be offenders. accused sentenced to 2 ½ years imprisonment 14 days right to appeal.”
5. The appellant was aggrieved by his sentence and has filed this appeal against the same.
6. His grounds of appeal, really, amount to mitigation. He stated therein that he was a first time offender; he was remorseful; he promises to always obey the law; and that he requests he be given one more chance.
7. It is unfortunate that the appellant did not voice those mitigation before the trial court. Indeed when given the opportunity to mitigate he remained mum.
8. Under Section 278 A of the Penal Codeunder which Section the appellant was charged it is provided that, on conviction one is liable to be sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. 7 years imprisonment therefore is the maximum sentence.
9. The appellant was first time offender and he pleaded guilty to the offence.
10. The trial court took into account that the appellant was a first time offender but in sentencing the trial court failed to state that it has taken into account that he had pleaded guilty.
11. The appellant before being sentence to 2½ years imprisonment had been at remand for 5 months. The trial court did not, as required under Section 333 of the Criminal procedure Code, taken into account that period he was in remand and did not given credit for the same. Section 333 under the Provision in Subsection (2) states:
“Provided that where the person sentenced under Subsection (1) has, prior to such sentence, been held in custody, the sentence shall take account of the period spent in Custody.”
12. In view of what is stated above this court is of the view that it can interfere with the trial court’s sentence. This court is of the view that had the trial court considered the appellant pleaded guilty and that he had spent five months in remand it would have given a more lenient sentence.
13. The judgment of this court in view of the above finding is that the appeal of Douglas Koome Kimathi, against sentence, succeeds. The trial court’s sentence is hereby set aside and Douglas Koome Kimathi is hereby sentence to serve imprisonment for the period already served. Accordingly an order is hereby issued that Douglas Koome Kimathi be released from custody unless he is otherwise lawfully held.
Dated and Delivered at Nanyuki this 14th February 2018
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Coram
Before Justice Mary Kasango
Court Assistant: Njue/Mariastella
Appellant: Douglas Koome Kimathi
For state: ………………………………
Language …………………………………
COURT
Judgment delivered in open court
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE