[2017] KEHC 6325 (KLR)
The court found that the plea of guilty was unequivocal, as the appellant confirmed the facts after they were read to him and interpreters were present to ensure he understood the proceedings. The trial court was not required to caution the appellant on the consequences of pleading guilty, as doing so could be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6325 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Hamed Abdullahi Hamed; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 2 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Trafficking in Persons, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing Minimums, Language of Proceedings
- 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
Hamed Abdullahi Hamed
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plea of guilty entered by the appellant was unequivocal.
- 2 Whether the plea was taken in a language the appellant understood.
- 3 Whether the trial court erred by not informing the appellant of the consequences of pleading guilty.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plea of guilty was unequivocal, as the appellant confirmed the facts after they were read to him and interpreters were present to ensure he understood the proceedings. The trial court was not required to caution the appellant on the consequences of pleading guilty, as doing so could be construed as bias. The sentence imposed was the statutory minimum under Section 5(d) of the Counter Trafficking in Persons Act. Accordingly, there was no error in conviction or sentence, and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The appellant will serve the sentence meted out by the learned trial magistrate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2016
HAMED ABDULLAHI HAMED.....................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC..................................................................................RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence in criminal case No.85 of 2016 of the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Isiolo by Hon. R.G Mundia – Resident Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
The appellant,HAMED ABDULLAHI HAMED, was convicted on own plea of guilty for the offence of promotion of trafficking in persons contrary to section 5(d) of the Counter Trafficking in Persons Act No.8 of 2010.
The particulars of the offence were that on 6th February 2016, in Maua Township of Meru County, he promoted the trafficking of fifteen Somali nationals by receiving them and facilitating their transport using motor vehicle registration number KCF 706 C, Mitsubishi Fuso from Modogashe to Maua where they were arrested en route to Nairobi.
The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of twenty million or in default to serve twenty years imprisonment. He now appeals against both conviction and sentence.
The appellant was represented by Mr. Ndubi, learned counsel. Four grounds of appeal were raised as follows:
1. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by not informing him of the consequences of pleading guilty.
2. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by convicting the appellant on a plea that was equivocal.
3. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by entering a plea of guilty on the basis of mere assumption.
4. That the learned trial magistrate erred in law and in fact by using a language the appellant did not understand in the proceedings.
The state opposed the appeal through Mr. Namiti, the learned counsel.
Looking at the grounds of appeal, there are only two issues. One, whether the plea was unequivocal or not and two, whether the plea was taken in a language the appellant understood. I will start with the issue of language.
When the plea was taken on 8th February 2016, there were a Borana interpreter and a Somali interpreter. The appellant was charged with two others and the plea was taken at the same time for all of them. Had the same been taken separately, then the appellant could be justified to complain that he did not understand the language ascribed to him. Since this was not the case, I make a finding that the charge was read to him in a language he understood.
The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge. After the facts were read to him, he confirmed them to be true. This plea was unequivocal.
The consequences of pleading guilty to a charge are obvious as day follows night. The trial court has no business of cautioning any accused of the consequences. If the trial court cautions on the consequences, (s)he may be accused of trying to influence the accused not plead guilty. This may be interpreted as bias in favour of the accused. The accused is left to freely and consciously plead in whichever way he chooses. The only duty that the trial court must exercise with care is to ensure that the accused understands the charge he is responding to, and that his plea is unequivocal. This is why upon pleading guilty, the facts are read out and the accused asked to confirm if they are factually correct before a conviction is entered. in the instant case, this was observed.
Section5(d) of the Counter-Trafficking in Persons Act provides as follows:
A person who—
(d) by any other means promotes trafficking in persons, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years or to a fine of not less than twenty million shillings or to both and upon subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for life.
The learned trial magistrate meted the minimum sentence provided by the law. He cannot be faulted.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the appeal must fail. the same is dismissed and the appellant will serve the sentence meted out by the learned trial magistrate.
DATED at MERUthis 27th day ofApril, 2017
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE