[2015] KEHC 3689 (KLR)
Although the sentence of 9 years imprisonment was within the statutory maximum for stealing stock under section 278 of the Penal Code, the trial court failed to adequately consider the appellant's personal circumstances, including her status as a single mother with dependent children and the fact that the stolen cow...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3689 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Margaret Wambui Mburu; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 255 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Only
- Outcome
- appeal partially allowed
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Mitigation, Stealing Stock, Excessive 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
Margaret Wambui Mburu
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence Only
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 9 years imprisonment for stealing stock was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court failed to consider the appellant's mitigation and personal circumstances before passing sentence.
- 3 Whether a probation report should have been called for to consider alternative punishment.
Ratio Decidendi
Although the sentence of 9 years imprisonment was within the statutory maximum for stealing stock under section 278 of the Penal Code, the trial court failed to adequately consider the appellant's personal circumstances, including her status as a single mother with dependent children and the fact that the stolen cow was recovered and returned to its owner. The appellate court found that, in these circumstances, the sentence was manifestly harsh and excessive. The court held that a probation report should have been called for to explore alternative, non-custodial sentences. Accordingly, the appellate court set aside the original sentence and ordered the appellant's immediate release,...
Court Disposition
appeal partially allowed
Orders
- The sentence of 9 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court is set aside.
- The appellant is to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 255 OF 2013
(FORMERLY NYERI HC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 131 OF 2012)
(Appeal against Sentence only in Kandara PM Criminal Case No 279 of 2012 – C Kithinji, RM)
MARGARET WAMBUI MBURU……….……..……….……..APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………………………..…………..…………..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
1. The Appellant was tried and convicted (along with another person who apparently did not appeal) of stealing stock contrary to section 278 of the Penal Code. She was sentenced to serve 9 years imprisonment. She appealed against the sentence only. Her grounds of appeal as appear in her petition are that the sentence was harsh and excessive; that the same was passed without considering the facts of the case; and that the trial court did not consider her mitigation and circumstances before passing sentence. She has also stated that she is deeply remorseful.
2. At the hearing of the appeal the Appellant reiterated that her appeal was against sentence only. She also said that she is a single mother with 3 children aged between 12 and 16 years, and that she is solely responsible for the maintenance and welfare of the children. Finally, she pointed out that the one cow that had been stolen was recovered live and restored to its owner. Learned Prosecution Counsel stated that whereas the sentence passed was lawful, it nevertheless appeared harsh and excessive considering the circumstances of the case.
3. Indeed the sentence of 9 years imprisonment was lawful as the offence carried a maximum of 14 years. In her mitigation the Appellant informed the trial court that she had a sick child whom she was taking to hospital and who she had left with her deaf mother. She was responsible for buying the child’s medication and ensuring that the child took the medication. In its notes on sentencing the trial court stated that it had considered the mitigation of both accused persons, but that it found that custodial sentences are appropriate as the offence was rampant in the area, and that a deterrent sentence was needed.
4. Given the personal circumstances of the Appellant, I hold that the trial court should have called for a probation report in order to consider alternative punishment for the Appellant. In any event 9 years imprisonment for stealing one cow which was recovered live and restored to the owner was, in the particular circumstances of the Appellant, manifestly harsh and excessive. When sentencing accused persons the court ought to look beyond the accused before it and consider the possible ramifications to other persons, especially children, of the sentence imposed. The Appellant was a single mother with 3 children to take care of. Her own mother was deaf and would no doubt have difficulties taking care of the children for the period of the sentence.
5. I will partially allow this appeal against sentence. I note that the Appellant was sentenced on 9/07/2012; she has now served 3 years of her sentence. I will set aside the sentence of 9 years imprisonment imposed by the trial court and substitute therefor such period of imprisonment as will enable the Appellant to be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held. To that extent only does the appeal succeed. It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AT MURANG’A THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2015
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2015