[2017] KEHC 2833 (KLR)
The court found that although the trial court has discretion to order sentences to run consecutively, public policy, sentencing policy, and the need to do justice require that sentences for offences arising from the same transaction and contained in one charge sheet should generally run concurrently. In this case,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 2833 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joshua Nyabuto Barongo; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Case 34 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Revision
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- BC Koech
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Policy, Concurrent Sentences, Judicial Discretion, Review of Sentence
- 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
Joshua Nyabuto Barongo
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentences imposed on the applicant should run concurrently or consecutively.
- 2 Whether the trial court exercised its discretion properly in ordering consecutive sentences for offences arising from the same transaction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the trial court has discretion to order sentences to run consecutively, public policy, sentencing policy, and the need to do justice require that sentences for offences arising from the same transaction and contained in one charge sheet should generally run concurrently. In this case, both offences were committed on the same day and were part of the same transaction. The respondent did not oppose the application. The court therefore exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to order that the sentences for stealing in a dwelling house and impersonating a public officer should run concurrently, effective from the date of the original sentencing.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The trial court's orders dated 3/1/2017 are reviewed.
- The applicant is to serve five (5) years imprisonment for stealing in a dwelling house and three (3) years imprisonment for impersonating a public officer, both sentences to run concurrently from 3/1/2017.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 34 OF 2017
JOSHUA NYABUTO BARONGO .................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ................................................................RESPONDENT
RULING ON REVISION
1. The Applicant herein JOSHUA NYABUTO BARONGO has filed an application dated 13th March, 2017 seeking for an Order that this Honourable Court do consolidate the sentences passed by the trial court so as to run concurrently.
2. The Applicant confirms that he was convicted and sentenced vide Machakos Chief Magistrate’s Court Criminal Case Number 346 of 2016wherein he was ordered to serve five (5) years imprisonment for the offence of stealing in a dwelling house and was further ordered to serve three (3) years imprisonment for the offence of impersonating a police officer. He further confirms that the said sentences were ordered by the trial court to run consecutively.
3. The Respondent through Mr. Machogu learned counsel for the Respondent indicated that they are not opposed to the Applicant’s Application.
4. A perusal of the record of the trial court confirms that the Applicant kept on requesting for the charges to be read afresh which the trial court duly acceded to and upon a plea of guilty being entered the trial court called for a pre-sentence report. The pre-sentence report was not favourable for a non custodial sentence and that the trial court on the 3/1/2017 ordered the Applicant to serve five (5) years and three (3) years imprisonment for the offences of stealing in a dwelling house contrary to section 279(b) and impersonating a public officer contrary to Section 105(b) of the Penal code respectively.
5. As the Respondent is not opposed to the request by the Applicant to have the sentence s to run concurrently, I allow the Application by the Applicant. Indeed a trial court has discretion to order for sentences to run consecutively depending on the circumstances of each case placed before it. However, sentencing policy, public policy as well as the need to do justice dictates that sentences meted out by trial courts upon conviction of offenders facing charges in one charge sheet ought to run concurrently. The applicant herein was facing charges committed on the same day and upon his conviction, it is only fair and just that the sentences do run concurrently.
6. In the result the trial Court’s Orders dated 3/1/2017 are reviewed. The Applicant is now ordered to serve five (5) years imprisonment and three (3) years imprisonment for the two offences of stealing in a dwelling house and impersonating a public officer respectively and which sentences shall run concurrently from 3/1/2017.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at MACHAKOS this 11thday of OCTOBER 2017.
D.K. KEMEI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Joshua Nybuto Barongo - Applicant
Machogu for Respondent
C/A: Kituva