[2017] KEHC 2072 (KLR)
The court found that while there were no irregularities in the proceedings of the lower court, the applicant was a first offender, which is a mitigating circumstance that warranted a more lenient penalty than would have been imposed otherwise. The High Court, exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, determined that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 2072 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Odhiambo Ochieng; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 57 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Reduction
- Outcome
- sentence revised in respect of count 1; sentences for counts 2 and 3 upheld
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Revision Jurisdiction, Mitigation of Sentence
- 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
George Odhiambo Ochieng
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Reduction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly harsh and excessive.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate considered the applicant's mitigation as a first offender.
- 3 Whether the High Court should exercise its revisionary jurisdiction to alter the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while there were no irregularities in the proceedings of the lower court, the applicant was a first offender, which is a mitigating circumstance that warranted a more lenient penalty than would have been imposed otherwise. The High Court, exercising its revisionary jurisdiction, determined that the sentence for the first count was manifestly harsh and excessive in light of the applicant's status as a first offender. Consequently, the sentence for count 1 was revised to a fine of Kshs. 20,000 in default 3 months imprisonment, while the sentences for counts 2 and 3 remained unchanged.
Court Disposition
sentence revised in respect of count 1; sentences for counts 2 and 3 upheld
Orders
- In the 1st count, the applicant is fined Kshs. 20,000/- in default, he shall serve 3 months imprisonment.
- Sentences in counts 2 and 3 remain as ordered by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISUMU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.57 OF 2017
(From original conviction and sentence in Traffic Case No. 382 of 2017 in
SeniorResident Magistrate's Court at Winam passed by B.Kasavuli - SRM).
GEORGE ODHIAMBO OCHIENG.................................APPLICANT
V E R S U S
REPUBLIC...............................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
This revision was brought by way of applicant’s application filed on 16. 11. 17 in which he seeks reduction of sentence on the following grounds:-
i. THAT the applicant is 24 years
ii. That the sentence imposed on him is manifestly harsh and excessive
iii. That the trial magistrate did not consider his mitigation
The brief background of this matter is that the applicant was charged and convicted of 3 counts. In the 1st count of careless riding, he was fined Kshs. 50,000/- in default 9 months imprisonment. In the 2nd count of riding an uninsured motor cycle, he was fined Kshs. 5,000/- in default 1 month imprisonment. In the 3rd count of riding without a license, he was fined Kshs. 1,000/- in default 1 month imprisonment.
The powers of the High court in revision are contained in Section 362 through to 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code (cap.75). Section 362 specifically provides as follows:-
“362. The High Court may call for and examine the record of any criminal proceedings before any subordinate court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of any such subordinate court”.
What the High Court can do under its revision jurisdiction is stated under section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75, which states as follows:-
“364. (1) in the case of a proceeding in a subordinate court the record of which has been called for or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High court may -
(a) in the case of a conviction, exercise any of the powers conferred on it as a court of appeal by section 354, 357 and 358, and may enhance sentence;.
(b) in the case of any other order than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order.
Section 354 (3) (a) (ii) provides that the High Court has power to
(iii) With or without a reduction or increase and with or without altering the finding, alter the nature of the sentence;
I have perused the record of the Lower court for the purpose of satisfying myself as to the legality, correctness or propriety of the same. I have not found any irregularities in the proceedings. The record shows that the applicant is a first offender. This is a mitigating circumstance that warranted a more lenient penalty than would have been ordinarily imposed in its absence.
In the end, the sentence imposed by the trial court is revised only in respect of count 1 in the following terms:
i. In the 1st count, the applicant is fined Kshs. 20,000/- in default, he shall serve 3 months imprisonment
ii. Sentences in counts 2 and 3 remain as ordered by the trial court
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS.22ndDAY OFNovember2017
T.W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Read in open court in the presence of-
Court Assistant - Felix
Appellant - N/A
For the State - N/A