[2017] KEHC 6110 (KLR)
The High Court found that there was no irregularity, illegality, or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate. The applicant's plea for leniency and mitigation had already been considered at trial. The magistrate exercised discretion appropriately by offering a fine as an option, which was lenient...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joyce Karimi Ita; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 154 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed; sentence upheld
- Judges
- FN Muchemi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Grievous Harm, Penal Code Section 234
- 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
Joyce Karimi Ita
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was irregular, illegal, or improper and thus subject to revision by the High Court.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a suspended sentence based on her mitigation and circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that there was no irregularity, illegality, or impropriety in the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate. The applicant's plea for leniency and mitigation had already been considered at trial. The magistrate exercised discretion appropriately by offering a fine as an option, which was lenient given the gravity of the offence. Therefore, there was no basis for the High Court to interfere with or revise the sentence under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court Disposition
application dismissed; sentence upheld
Orders
- The application for revision is dismissed.
- The sentence imposed by the trial magistrate is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 154 OF 2016
JOYCE KARIMI ITA................................................ APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS......RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant was convicted by Senior Resident Magistrate Siakago of the offence of grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Kshs.100,000/= in default five (5) years imprisonment.
2. The application for revision seeks for review of the sentence and grant her a suspended sentence on the following grounds:-
(a) That she is remorseful and will always promote peace.
(b) That she has served part of the sentence and has reformed.
(c) That she has undertaken vocational training in prison and specialized in embroidery.
(d) That she is 25 years old with one child.
3. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that the applicant satisfies the court that the trial magistrate committed an irregularity, or an illegality or an impropriety in his finding, sentence or order to justify correction by this court.
4. The maximum sentence of grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the Penal Code is life imprisonment. The magistrate was very lenient to the applicant in giving an option of a fine and a defaulters sentence.
5. The applicant does not fault the magistrate in any way in passing sentence but only pleads for leniency.
6. The applicant had an opportunity to give her mitigation before the trial court which was considered in passing sentence.
7. I have perused the proceedings and the law and I find no irregularity, illegality or impropriety on part of the magistrate that requires to be corrected by way of review.
8. I find the application lacking merit and is hereby dismissed.
9. The sentence is hereby upheld.
10. It is hereby so ordered.
DATED, AND SIGNED THIS 12TH APRIL, 2017.
F. MUCHEMI
JUDGE