[2019] KEHC 9527 (KLR)
The High Court found that although the appellant did not present evidence of being a student at the trial, and did not mitigate, these factors should not be held strictly against him. The court held that failure to mitigate does not automatically indicate lack of remorse. Considering the appellant was a first...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 9527 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Jevin John Wire; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 18 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Stealing Stock, First Offender, Mitigation, Probation Orders
- 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
Jevin John Wire
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was harsh or excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the appellant's status as a student and first offender warranted interference with the sentence.
- 3 Whether failure to mitigate should be interpreted as lack of remorse.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that although the appellant did not present evidence of being a student at the trial, and did not mitigate, these factors should not be held strictly against him. The court held that failure to mitigate does not automatically indicate lack of remorse. Considering the appellant was a first offender and giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding his student status, the court determined that the sentence of four years imprisonment was excessive. The court exercised its discretion to interfere with the sentence, setting aside the custodial sentence and substituting it with a probation order for three years, with a warning that non-compliance would result in...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The sentence of four years imprisonment is set aside.
- The appellant is released from prison and committed to probation for a period of three years.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2018
JEVIN JOHN WIRE................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC...........................RESPONDENT
(From the original conviction and sentence in Criminal case No. 62D of 2017 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Busia by Hon. W.K Chepseba–Chief Magistrate)
JUDGMENT
1. Jevin John Wire, the appellant herein, was convicted for the offence of stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code.
2. The particulars of the offence were that on the night of 16th and 17th December 2017 atNangovillage, inButulasub-county of Busia County, stole one head of cattle valued at Kshs.35,000/= the property of Mary Awour Omondi.
3. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to serve four years imprisonment. He now appeals against the sentence which he claims was harsh and that he was a student.
4. The appeal was opposed by the state through Ms. Ngari, learned counsel who contended that the sentence was lenient.
5. This is a first appellate court. As expected, I have analyzed and evaluated afresh all the evidence adduced before the lower court and I have drawn my own conclusions while bearing in mind that I neither saw nor heard any of the witnesses. I will be guided by the celebrated case of Okeno vs. Republic [1972] EA 32.
6. An appellate court can only interfere with the sentence by the trial court where there are sufficient circumstances. These circumstances were illustrated in the case of Ogalo Son of Owuora vs. Republic (1954) 21 EACA 270as follows:
The principles upon which an appellate court will act in exercising its jurisdiction to review sentences are fairly established. The court does not alter a sentence on the mere ground that if the members of the court had been trying the appellant, they might have passed a somewhat different sentence and it will not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by a trial Judge unless as was said in James v Rex (1950), 18 EACA 147, it is evident that the Judge has acted upon some wrong principle or overlooked some material factor! To this, we would also add a third criterion, namely, that the sentence is manifestly excessive in view of the circumstances of the case. R v Shershewsity (1912) C.CA 28 T.LR 364.
When the appellant was called upon to mitigate, he offered no mitigation. The learned trial magistrate inferred from failure to mitigate that the appellant was not remorseful. The failure to mitigate may not necessarily mean that one is not remorseful. He may be stung by guilty conscience to be unable to mitigate.
7. Though the appellant claims to be a student, he never brought this to the trial court. The learned trial magistrate cannot be faulted for failure to factor it.
8. Although the appellant averred that he attached a copy of report card, there was no such a copy. I will however give him the benefit of doubts and interfere with the sentence considering that he was a first offender.
9. I will vary the sentence and release him from prison, and commit him to probation for a period of three years. Failure to comply with probation orders, he will be arrested and send back to prison to complete the remainder of the sentence.
10. His appeal therefore, succeeds to that extent.
DELIVERED and SIGNED at BUSIA this 7th day of March, 2019
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE