[2018] KEHC 3143 (KLR)
The court held that since the appellant pleaded guilty, he could not appeal against conviction, only against the sentence. The court found that the original sentence of five years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the appellant's mitigation, including his status as a first offender, his remorse, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3143 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Mutuku Muinde; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 68 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence varied
- Judges
- BA Mitullah
- Legal Topics
- False Statement, Prevention of Terrorism, Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty
- 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
Joseph Mutuku Muinde
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant can appeal against conviction after pleading guilty.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the circumstances.
- 3 What is the appropriate sentence considering the appellant's mitigation and time already served.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the appellant pleaded guilty, he could not appeal against conviction, only against the sentence. The court found that the original sentence of five years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the appellant's mitigation, including his status as a first offender, his remorse, and the period already served in custody. The court determined that further imprisonment would not serve the interests of justice or social cohesion. Instead, the sentence was reduced to the period already served, and the appellant was ordered to perform six months of community service at the Voi police station as reparation for his actions.
Court Disposition
sentence varied
Orders
- The appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already served.
- The appellant shall serve six months of community service at Voi police station, attending every Tuesday and Thursday for maintenance, repairs, and general cleaning duties as directed by the OCS.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VOI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH MUTUKU MUINDE..........................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC......................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
(An Appeal from the Decision of Hon. Senior Principal Magistrate E. Nderitu, Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court Voi on 27th January 2017)
1. Appeal admitted for Hearing on 30th November 2017. The Appellant filed his Petition for Appeal on 4th September 2017. He wishes to Appeal against conviction and sentence. He has filed MITIGATION GROUNDS OF APPEAL stating
1. He was a drunkard
2. He was a first offender
3. He is responsible for children
4. The sentence is too harsh
2. The Appellant was convicted on 17th January 2017 of the offence of making a false statement with intent contrary to Section 20 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2012 in the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court in Voi. The particulars of the offence are that he claimed to be a member of the Al Shabaab Group and was hired to undertake terrorist attacks during December 2016. He pleaded guilty. The offence was said to have been committed at Voi police station. The Appellant has never registered for an ID card.
He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
3. Written submissions filed and considered.
4. The Appellant has appealed against conviction. As he pleaded guilty he cannot appeal against conviction.
5. The Appellant pleaded guilty. He was nonetheless sentenced to serve 3 years imprisonment. He now says he accepts what he did was foolish and regrets it. In the circumstances it can be said to that extend he has reformed.
6. The offence he was charged with is a serious offence and goes to the heart of social cohesion however a period of 5 years is manifestly excessive. It is true that his allegations and the consequent investigations led to a waste of police time. However, further imprisonment will not make separations. He has already spent more than 12 months in prison.
7. This court therefore orders that his sentence be reduced to the period already served. There should be a further period of 6 months community service where the Appellant shall be required by way of reparation attend at Voi police station on every Tuesday and Thursday and undertake such maintenance, repairs and general cleaning duties as the OCS shall consider necessary. In that way he will have an opportunity to make reparation.
It is so ordered.
FARAH S. M. AMIN
JUDGE
SIGNED DATED AND DELIVERED ON THIS the 16th day of October 2018.
In the presence of:-
Court assistant – Josephat Mavu
Appellant: in person
Respondent: Ms Anyumba