[2021] KEHC 2866 (KLR)
The court held that the trial magistrate exercised proper judicial discretion in sentencing the applicant to five years' imprisonment for burglary and stealing, considering the severity of the offence. However, the court found that the applicant had demonstrated genuine remorse and reformation during his...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2866 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Geofrey Ethinyen Okelo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application 34 (E155) of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application for revision of sentence allowed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Judicial Discretion, Revision of Sentence, Rehabilitation, Youth Offenders
- 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
Geofrey Ethinyen Okelo
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion properly.
- 2 Whether the custodial sentence imposed was harsh or excessive in the circumstances.
- 3 Whether the applicant's reformation and remorse justify a revision of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial magistrate exercised proper judicial discretion in sentencing the applicant to five years' imprisonment for burglary and stealing, considering the severity of the offence. However, the court found that the applicant had demonstrated genuine remorse and reformation during his incarceration, having served two years and undertaken rehabilitative activities. In view of these circumstances, and the applicant's youth, the court determined that the objectives of sentencing had been met and that further incarceration would not serve the interests of justice. The court therefore commuted the custodial sentence to the period already served and ordered the applicant's...
Court Disposition
application for revision of sentence allowed
Orders
- The custodial sentence of the applicant is commuted to the period served.
- The applicant is ordered set at liberty forthwith and released from prison unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 34 (E155) OF 2021
GEOFREY ETHINYEN OKELO............................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.............................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant, Geofrey Ethinyen Okelo, was convicted of the offence of Burglary and Stealing contrary to Section 304 as read with Section 279of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve five (5) years imprisonment on 15th May 2019. This was in Kitale CMCCRC No. 3110/2019. The Applicant has been in prison serving the custodial sentence since then. He has now filed an application before this court seeking revision of his custodial sentence.
In his application, the Applicant stated that at the time of his arrest, he was a secondary school student. During the period of his incarceration, he had learnt his lesson. He had undertaken several courses that have made him a better person. He has learnt a trade that will serve him upon his release should the court favourably, consider his application. The Applicant stated that he was twenty one years of age and should in the circumstances be given a second chance at life. Mr Omooria for the State left the issue of sentence to the court.
In sentencing the Applicant to serve the custodial sentence, the trial magistrate was exercising judicial discretion. This court cannot interfere with such exercise of judicial discretion unless it is established that the trial court failed to take into consideration a relevant factor or took into consideration an irrelevant factor or failed to consider the applicable sentencing Principles. This court will interfere with such sentence, if it is established that the same was harsh or excessive in the circumstance. In the present application, this court cannot fault the trial magistrate for reaching the verdict that was reached. It was legal. It took into account the severity of the offence that was committed.
However, this court noted that since his incarceration, the Applicant has reformed. He is remorseful and regrets the decision that led him to commit the offence. He has learnt his lesson. It appears that the period of two years that the Applicant has been in prison, he has learnt that crime does not pay. This court is of the view that the Applicant should be given a second chance at life.
In the premises therefore, the custodial sentence of the Applicant is commuted to the period served. The Applicant is ordered set at liberty forthwith and released from prison unless otherwise lawfully held.
DATED AT KITALE THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE