[2020] KEHC 3789 (KLR)
The trial court erred by binding itself to the minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment as prescribed by law for gang rape, without exercising judicial discretion as clarified by the Supreme Court in Muruatetu. The High Court found that while the minimum sentence is no longer mandatory, the seriousness of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 3789 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: James Lemisho Samuria; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 6 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- sentence varied; application partially successful
- Judges
- AG Ndung'u
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Minimum Mandatory Sentences, Sexual Offences, Judicial Discretion
- 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
James Lemisho Samuria
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the minimum mandatory sentence for gang rape under Section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act is binding on the court after the Supreme Court decision in Muruatetu.
- 2 Whether the sentence of 15 years imprisonment imposed on the applicant should be revised in light of current sentencing jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court erred by binding itself to the minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment as prescribed by law for gang rape, without exercising judicial discretion as clarified by the Supreme Court in Muruatetu. The High Court found that while the minimum sentence is no longer mandatory, the seriousness of the offence and the impact on the victim warrant a deterrent sentence. The court therefore set aside the 15-year sentence and substituted it with a 10-year imprisonment term, to run from the date of the original sentence.
Court Disposition
sentence varied; application partially successful
Orders
- The sentence of 15 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court is set aside.
- The applicant is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment to run from the date of sentence by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KISII
CORAM: A.K NDUNG’U J
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 6 OF 2020
JAMES LEMISHO SAMURIA.............................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...........................................................................................RESPONDENT
(From original conviction and sentenceof Hon. A.K Mokoross –
Ag.SRM dated 10th December 2014at the Principal Magistrate’s
Court at Kilgoris in Criminal (Sexual Offences) Case No. 94 of 2014)
RULING
1. James Lemisho Samuria was charged with the Gang rape contrary to Section 10 of theSexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. He was tried and convicted and a sentence of 15 years meted out on him.
2. Aggrieved by the sentence, the applicant lodged a revision before this court inviting this court to re-look at the sentence with a view to reducing the same. In addition to the notice of motion, the applicant has filed what he terms as mitigation citing 5 factors for the court to consider.
3. In his submissions, the applicant reiterates that he is not challenging the conviction. He seeks that the court reduces his sentence of 15 years to a manageable period. He seeks a non-custodial sentence.
4. In response, Mr. Otieno for the State opposed the application. He avers that the offence was proved and the sentence of 15 years is not harsh.
5. I have looked at the sentiments of the court while sentencing the applicant. The court stated;
“The punishment prescribed by the Law for an offence of gang rape is a minimum of 15 years imprisonment which may be enhanced to life. Consequently accused is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 15 years.”
6. It is clear that the court tied itself to the minimum sentence provided in Law for the offence herein. In light of the decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu –vs- Republic this is no longer good Law. The decision of the Supreme Court removed the shackles of minimum sentences leaving it to the court to mete out sentences based on circumstances of the case.
7. However, even as the shackles of minimum mandatory sentences are removed, we should not lose sight of the objectives of sentencing.
My understanding of Muruatetu case is to the effect that the Supreme Court did not out law minimum sentences. The Court only freed the hands of the court to be able to mete out appropriate sentences based on the circumstances of each case. Where a court has clearly expressed itself on the reasons why it has imposed a minimum sentence and such reasons are cogent, an appellate court should not interfere with the discretion in sentencing.
8. I summarize hereunder the objectives of sentencing for a better understanding of the applicable principles. Sentences are imposed for the following objectives;
1. Retribution: To punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner.
2. Deterrence: To deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences.
3. Rehabilitation: To enable the offender reform from his criminal disposition and become a law abiding person.
4. Restorative justice: To address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages. Criminal conduct ordinarily occasions victims’, communities’ and offenders’ needs and justice demands that these are met. Further, to promote a sense of responsibility through the offender’s contribution towards meeting the victims’ needs.
5. Community protection: To protect the community by incapacitating the offender.
6. Denunciation: To communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.
As far as possible sentences passed should be geared towards meeting the above objectives in totality.
9. To the extent that the trial court bound itself to the minimum sentence provided in Law, I am persuaded that there is good ground to interfere with the sentence.
10. I am however quick to note the seriousness of the offence herein and the impact on the victim. No doubt a deterrent sentence is necessary.
11. I find and hold that the application herein is partially successful. I set aside the sentence of 15 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court and substitute thereof a sentence of 10 years imprisonment to run from the date of sentence by the trial court.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at KISII this 3rd day of August 2020.
A. K. NDUNG'U
JUDGE