[2011] KEHC 1492 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate failed to consider the appellant's mitigation, his status as a first offender, his remorse, and the victim impact statement from the deceased's family. These are relevant factors in sentencing, especially given the appellant's young age and the circumstances of the offence....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1492 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Erastus Chege Maina; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 73 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence varied; appeal on sentence allowed
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Plea of Guilty
- 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
Erastus Chege Maina
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 7 years imprisonment for manslaughter was manifestly excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial court failed to consider the principles of sentencing, including mitigation and the victim impact statement.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate failed to consider the appellant's mitigation, his status as a first offender, his remorse, and the victim impact statement from the deceased's family. These are relevant factors in sentencing, especially given the appellant's young age and the circumstances of the offence. The sentence of 7 years was therefore manifestly excessive. The High Court intervened to correct this by substituting the sentence with one of 3 years imprisonment, to run from the date of the original sentence, resulting in the appellant's immediate release as he had already served the substituted term.
Court Disposition
sentence varied; appeal on sentence allowed
Orders
- The sentence of 7 years imprisonment is set aside and substituted with one of 3 years imprisonment.
- The sentence to run from the date of the original sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2008
ERASTUS CHEGE MAINA ……………….……… APPELLANT
Versus
REPUBLIC ………………………........………… RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
ERASTUS CHEGE MAINA, the appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilt for the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 202 as read with section 205 of the Penal Code. He was then sentenced to serve 7 years imprisonment. The appellant was aggrieved hence this appeal.
On Appeal the appellant put forward two main ground of appeal vizly:-
(i) That the sentence was manifestly excessive.
(ii) That the trial court did not consider the
principles of sentencing.
The particulars of the offence are that on the 5th day of March2008, at Gikondi Secondary School in Nyeri District within Central Province, unlawfully killed Daniel Kanyai Karienyi, a person aged 17 years. The facts outlined by the prosecution are that on 5th March 2008 the deceased had gone to inquire the whereabouts of a colleague called Wachiuri in the class of the accused. The deceased talked loudly and the accused who was the class prefect asked the deceased to walk out. The deceased is said to have abused the accused telling him he was a son of a bitch. The accused is said to have gone out of his class to follow the deceased whereupon he kicked him along the corridors. The deceased fell down unconscious. The head teacher took the deceased to hospital where he was pronounced dead. The postmortem report shows that the deceased died as a result of pulmonary arrest due to head injury and trauma.
Having set out the particulars and the facts of the offence, let me now consider the appeal. It is said that the trial magistrate did not consider the principles of sentencing and that the sentence tendered was harsh and excessive. The record shows that the appellant readily pleaded guilty to the offence and that he was a first offender aged between 18½ and 19 years. In his mitigation the appellant appeared to be remorseful in his language. The victims impact statement clearly indicates that the deceased’s family were ready to forgive the accused so long as they were informed of the circumstances leading to his death. In an appeal against sentence, it is trite law that an appellate court will not normally interfere with a sentence unless it is shown that the sentencing court did not consider the relevant factors or that it considered irrelevant factors or that the sentence was manifestly excessive. In this case it would appear the learned Senior Principal Magistrate did not consider the appellant’s mitigation and the victims impact statement. In the circumstances this court must step in to correct the anomaly.
I have already stated that both the appellant and the deceased were students at Gikondi Secondary School aged between 17 and 19 years. They were persons of tender age. The appellant was remorseful, pleaded guilty and was a first offender. Had the trial court considered all the above factors it would have tendered a lesser sentence.
In the circumstances of this case, the sentence of 7 years was a bit harsh to the appellant. I hereby set aside the sentence of 7 years and substitute it with one of 3 years imprisonment. The sentence to run from the date of sentence. The effect of my decision is that the appellant has completed sentence hence he should be set free forthwith unless lawfully held.
Dated and Delivered this 17th day of June 2011
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In open court in the presence of Mr. Kiminda for the Appellant and in the presence of Mr. Makura for the State.