[2023] KEHC 23838 (KLR)
The court declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, finding that the applicant had been convicted on his own plea of guilty for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years, and that the sentence of 4 years was neither illegal nor unjust. The court considered the probation officer's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23838 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Denis Kiplangat Koech; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E041 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- Application for sentence revision dismissed.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts, Sentencing Revision, Plea of Guilty, Probation Report, Non Custodial Sentence, Penal Code Section 279g
- 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
Denis Kiplangat Koech
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant should be revised in light of the probation officer's report and circumstances of the case.
- 2 Whether the applicant is suitable for a non-custodial sentence given the home environment and his conduct.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, finding that the applicant had been convicted on his own plea of guilty for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years, and that the sentence of 4 years was neither illegal nor unjust. The court considered the probation officer's report, which found the applicant unsuitable for a non-custodial sentence due to an unconducive home environment and lack of support from family, local administrators, and the complainant. The applicant's registration for the K.C.P.E examination in prison was noted, but did not warrant sentence revision. The court held that there was no basis for revision and directed the...
Court Disposition
Application for sentence revision dismissed.
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the trial court is upheld.
- The applicant shall serve the remainder of his sentence as imposed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Koech v Republic (Criminal Revision E041 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 23838 (KLR) (19 October 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23838 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kericho
Criminal Revision E041 of 2023
JK Sergon, J
October 19, 2023
Between
Denis Kiplangat Koech
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. Denis Kiplangat Koech, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty for the offence of Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts Contrary to Section 279 (G) of thePenal Code.
2. On October 5, 2022, Hon Aziza Ajwang, the Learned Senior Resident Magistrate sentenced the Applicant to serve 4 years imprisonment.
3. The Proceedings relating to the aforesaid case, that is Kericho CMCR Case No E2090 of 2022 –Republic-vs-Denis Kiplangat Koech were placed before this Court pursuant to the provisions of Section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The Probation Officer filed a sentence review report on July 24, 2023. In the said report it was noted that the applicant was remorseful and had realized the implications of his actions. The prison authorities stated that the applicant was co-operative and was not opposed to his release. It is also stated that the home environment was still not favorable for his immediate release as his family members and Local Administrators as well as the complainant were all not receptive towards his release because of his past criminal record. The prison authorities also stated that the Applicant had registered for K.C.P.E examination and was due to sit for the same in October, 2023. In view of the fact that the home environment was not conducive for the release of the applicant and the fact that the Applicant had registered for the K.C.P.E examination in prison which was due in October, the probation officer found the Applicant not to be suitable for non-custodial sentence.
5. The Applicant has so far served one (1) year and is remaining with three (3) years to complete his sentence.
6. Having considered the probation officer’s report in the Sentence Review Report, and having taken into account the fact that the offence the Applicant was convicted for attracts a maximum sentence of 14 year, its clear that the Applicant does not deserve a revision of the sentence. I decline to interfere with the sentence imposed and direct that the Accused serves the sentence imposed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. ……………………J.K. SERGONJUDGE