[2017] KEHC 706 (KLR)
The court found that the sentence of three years imprisonment imposed on the applicant was within the statutory limits provided by the Alcoholic Drinks Act. The applicant was not a first offender, having three previous convictions within twelve months, categorizing her as a habitual offender. The court emphasized...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 706 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackline Wanja; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 160 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Habitual Offender, Revision Jurisdiction, Alcoholic Drinks Offences
- 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
Jackline Wanja
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal, irregular, or mistaken under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a revision of sentence based on her personal circumstances and alleged reformation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the sentence of three years imprisonment imposed on the applicant was within the statutory limits provided by the Alcoholic Drinks Act. The applicant was not a first offender, having three previous convictions within twelve months, categorizing her as a habitual offender. The court emphasized its duty to discourage habitual offending by imposing deterrent sentences. There was no illegality, irregularity, or mistake in the trial court's proceedings or sentencing to justify revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant's personal circumstances and claims of reformation did not warrant interference with the lawful sentence imposed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
- The ruling to be served on the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 160 OF 2016
JACKLINE WANJA................. APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC............................RESPONDENT
18/01/2017
Before: Muchemi, J.
R U L I N G
1. I have perused this file brought to me for revision under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was convicted of the offence of alcoholic drinks contrary to Section 27(1) (b) as read with Section 27(4) of the Alcoholic Drinks Act. She had 15 litres of traditional liquor otherwise known as “machore”. She was sentenced to serve three years imprisonment.
2. In her application she outlines her grounds for review of sentence stating that she has served four (4) months imprisonment and that she has undergone counselling and reformed. Further that she is a single mother of five children. She pleads for a suspended sentence for the remaining period.
3. Section 362 of the CPC addresses issues of illegality, irregularity or mistake by the trial court and empowers this court to correct them in way of revision.
4. The applicant pleaded not guilty, evidence was taken, defence heard and she was convicted after full hearing. Section 27 provides for a fine not exceeding Shs. 2 million or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five (5) years.
5. The applicant was not a first offender. She had three previous convictions within a period of 12 months. This puts her in the category of habitual offenders which the court has a duty to discourage by meting out deterrent sentences. The sentence of three years imposed was within the law.
6. The magistrate did not make any mistake or commit any illegality under Section 362 of the CPC for this court to review.
7. The application is accordingly dismissed.
8. The ruling to be served on the applicant.
F.MUCHEMI
JUDGE
18/01/2017