[2018] KEHC 3473 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 3473 (KLR)

The offences for which the appellant was convicted arose from a single transaction, namely the prevention of police officers from effecting an arrest. The Sentencing Policy Guidelines and relevant case law require that, in such circumstances, sentences should run concurrently unless there are multiple transactions or victims, which was not the case here. The trial court did not provide reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. The appellate court, therefore, found that the trial court erred in law and in principle by ordering the sentences to run consecutively. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 3473 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mathias Orare Masole; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 October 2018
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 62 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Sentencing Policy, Concurrent Sentences, Consecutive Sentences, Assault on Police Officer
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Policy Concurrent Sentences Consecutive Sentences Assault on Police Officer

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathias Orare Masole

Appellant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for offences arising from the same transaction.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently in accordance with the Sentencing Policy Guidelines.

Ratio Decidendi

The offences for which the appellant was convicted arose from a single transaction, namely the prevention of police officers from effecting an arrest. The Sentencing Policy Guidelines and relevant case law require that, in such circumstances, sentences should run concurrently unless there are multiple transactions or victims, which was not the case here. The trial court did not provide reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. The appellate court, therefore, found that the trial court erred in law and in principle by ordering the sentences to run consecutively. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The sentences on both counts shall run concurrently.