[2018] KEHC 8416 (KLR)
The court found no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, as the appellant was apprehended immediately after the incident with the complainant's stolen property, did not offer mitigation, and the sentence of 6 years was well within the statutory maximum of 14 years for handling stolen...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 8416 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Gerald Gitari Mugo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 12 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Handling Stolen Goods, Appeal Against Sentence
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gerald Gitari Mugo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for handling stolen goods was unduly harsh or excessive.
- 2 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's exercise of sentencing discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, as the appellant was apprehended immediately after the incident with the complainant's stolen property, did not offer mitigation, and the sentence of 6 years was well within the statutory maximum of 14 years for handling stolen goods. The sentence was deemed lawful and reasonable, and there was no evidence that the trial court misapplied its discretion or considered irrelevant factors.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT AT KIAMBU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2018
BETWEEN
GERALD GITARI MUGO………… APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC…………….………. RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal against the original conviction and sentence dated 22nd December 2015 in Criminal Case No. 2690 of 2014 at Thika Chief Magistrates Court before Hon. A. Lorot, PM)
JUDGMENT
1. Although the appellant, GERALD GITARI MUGO, was charged under the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296(2) of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya), he was convicted of the offence of handling stolen goods contrary to section 322(2) of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to serve 6 years’ imprisonment.
2. The appellant appeals against conviction and sentence. At the hearing of this appeal he prayed for the court to reconsider the sentence as he has been in custody for a long time and has reformed.
3. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the sentence was appropriate in light of circumstances of the case as he was found with recently stolen goods immediately after the robbery incident.
4. The imposition of a sentence is a matter for the trial court’s discretion and for the appellate court to interfere with a sentence, it must be shown that the trial court failed to take into account relevant factors or took into account irrelevant facts. The appellant may also demonstrate that the trial court erred on a point of law or principal or that in the circumstances the sentence was unduly harsh and excessive.
5. I cannot say that the sentence was unduly harsh as the appellant was caught immediately after the incident with the complainant’s shoes and although he was a first offender, the sentencing notes showed that he did not offer any mitigation. Given the maximum sentence under section 322(1) of the Penal Code is 14 years’ imprisonment, I see no basis upon which I can intervene in an otherwise lawful and reasonable sentence.
6. The appeal is dismissed.
DATED and DELIVERED at KIAMBU this 14th day of February 2018.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Appellant in person.
Mr Kinyanjui, Prosecution Counsel, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.