[2023] KEHC 24240 (KLR)
The High Court found that although the appellant did not offer mitigation, this did not conclusively prove lack of remorse, as he may have been overwhelmed by the proceedings. The court recognized the appellant as a first offender who pleaded guilty, thus saving judicial time. Considering these mitigating factors...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 24240 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Caleb Kioko Kinyili; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Makueni
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E061 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- GMA Dulu
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Threats to Kill, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation, First Offender, Remorse Assessment
- 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
Caleb Kioko Kinyili
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 36 months imprisonment for threatening to kill was harsh or excessive.
- 2 Whether the appellant's lack of mitigation indicated lack of remorse.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that although the appellant did not offer mitigation, this did not conclusively prove lack of remorse, as he may have been overwhelmed by the proceedings. The court recognized the appellant as a first offender who pleaded guilty, thus saving judicial time. Considering these mitigating factors and the maximum sentence prescribed by law, the court held that the original sentence of 36 months was excessive. The sentence was reduced to 24 months imprisonment, with a warning to the appellant not to repeat similar offences.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The sentence of 36 months imprisonment is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Kinyili v Republic (Criminal Appeal E061 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 24240 (KLR) (16 October 2023) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 24240 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Makueni
Criminal Appeal E061 of 2022
GMA Dulu, J
October 16, 2023
Between
Caleb Kioko Kinyili
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
(From the conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. E079 of 2022 at Makindu Law Courts on 3rd February 2022 by Hon. J. D. Karani (RM))
Judgment
1. The appellant was convicted by the Magistrate’s court at Makindu for the offence of threatening to kill contrary to section 223 (1) of the Penal Code (cap.63) on his own plea of guilty.
2. He was then sentenced to serve 36 months imprisonment.
3. Dissatisfied with the sentence, the appellant has come to this court on appeal. His grounds of appeal are actually against both conviction and sentence.
4. The appeal was canvassed through submissions. In this regard, I have perused and considered the submissions filed by the appellant as well as the submissions filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
5. I note that in the written submissions, the appellant has limited his submissions to the severity of sentence. I thus take it that the appellant has abandoned his appeal against conviction.
6. The appellant has relied on the case of Francis Kariokor Muruatetu =Versus= Republic (2015) eKLR and the Judiciary Sentencing Policy and Guidelines and urged this court to consider all relevant factors and reduce the sentence imposed.
7. The Director of Public Prosecutions on their part submitted that the sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive as the appellant had threatened to kill someone, and the court observed that he was not remorseful.
8. The maximum sentence for the offence of threatening to kill under section 223(1) is ten (10) years imprisonment.
9. When the appellant was asked to mitigate, he said nothing. He was a first offender though and had pleaded guilty to the offence and did not waste the court’s time.
10. In those circumstances, the fact that the appellant did not say anything in mitigation, did not necessarily confirm that he was not remorseful. Maybe yes, maybe no. He might as well have been overwhelmed by the unfolding events in the criminal trial, being a layman. I will thus reduce the sentence but with a warning to the appellant.
11. Consequently and for the above reasons, I allow the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed and order that the appellant will serve 24 months imprisonment. He is however warned not to repeat similar offences.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 VIRTUALLY AT VOI.GEORGE DULUJUDGEIn the presence of:-Alfred – Court AssistantAppellantMr. Kazungu for State