[2015] KEHC 8472 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised sentencing discretion by considering the appellant's status as a repeat offender. There was no evidence that the sentencing court considered irrelevant matters, failed to consider relevant matters, or applied the wrong legal principles. The sentence of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 8472 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Michael Stephen Okinda; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 129 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Repeat Offender, House Breaking, Stealing, Appellate Review, Penal Code
- 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
Michael Stephen Okinda
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive or based on wrong principles.
- 2 Whether the appellate court should interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate properly exercised sentencing discretion by considering the appellant's status as a repeat offender. There was no evidence that the sentencing court considered irrelevant matters, failed to consider relevant matters, or applied the wrong legal principles. The sentence of five years' imprisonment was not excessive in the circumstances, especially given the appellant's prior conviction for a similar offence. Consequently, there was no justification for appellate interference, and the sentence was affirmed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; sentence affirmed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence of five years' imprisonment is affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT HOMA-BAY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 129 OF 2014
BETWEEN
MICHAEL STEPHEN OKINDA …............. APPELLANT
AND
REPUBLIC ………………………………... RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the original conviction and sentence of Hon. N. Kariuki, RM in Homa Bay Chief Magistrates Court Criminal Case No. 1242 of 2011 dated 24th May 2013)
JUDGMENT
The appellant, MICHAEL STEPHEN OKINDA, was charged with the offence of house breaking and stealing contrary to section 304(1)(b) and stealing contrary to section 279(b) of the Penal Code (Chapter 63 of the Laws of Kenya). He was convicted and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
The appellant’s appeal is against the sentence. In the petition grounds filed on 11th November 2014, he states that he has fully reformed and that he will shun bad company, that he has learned tailoring skills in prison and that his sentence should be reconsidered to enable him go back to society.
Sentencing is essentially the discretion of the sentencing court. An appellate court will be slow to interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is shown that the sentencing court took into account an irrelevant factor or that it failed to take into account a relevant factor, or that it applied a wrong principle or short of these the sentence is so harsh and excessive that an error of principle must be inferred.
The main consideration the learned magistrate took into account was that the appellant was a repeat offender. It is not in dispute that the appellant was charged and convicted of the offence of house breaking and stealing in Homa Bay Chief Magistrates Court Criminal Case No. 1243 of 2011 where he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. His appeal against conviction and sentence in Homa Bay HCCRA No. 42 of 2014 was dismissed.
Given the fact that the appellant was a repeat offender, I decline to interfere with the sentence. It is affirmed and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
DATED and DELIVERED at HOMA BAY this 9th June 2015.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
Appellant in person.
Mr Oluoch, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, instructed by the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.