[2017] KEHC 9547 (KLR)
The court found that although the applicant's mitigation was considered, the trial court failed to take into account the period the applicant had spent in remand custody as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Sentencing Policy Guidelines. Upon review, the court determined that crediting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9547 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Morris Karuga Wanjiru; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 450 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application allowed; sentence reviewed and applicant released
- Legal Topics
- Manslaughter, Sentencing Review, Remand Period Credit, Plea of Guilty, Mitigation Rights
- 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
Morris Karuga Wanjiru
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the time spent in remand should be considered as part of the applicant's sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant's right to mitigation was observed during sentencing.
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the applicant's mitigation was considered, the trial court failed to take into account the period the applicant had spent in remand custody as required by Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Sentencing Policy Guidelines. Upon review, the court determined that crediting the remand period meant the applicant had already served his sentence. Therefore, the remainder of the sentence was set aside and the applicant was ordered to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
application allowed; sentence reviewed and applicant released
Orders
- The remainder of the applicant's sentence is set aside.
- The applicant is to be forthwith set free unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NUMBER 450 OF 2016
MORRIS KARUGA WANJIRU…………APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC…………...……………….RESPONDENT
RULING
Morris Karuga Wanjiru, herein the Applicant, filed the present application on 15th December, 2016. He sought to have his sentence reviewed. The Applicant was convicted on 24th November, 2014 of committing the offence of manslaughter. The conviction was based on his own plea of guilty and he was subsequently sentenced to eight years imprisonment.
He urged the court to consider the time he served in remand as constituting a part of the sentence. He told the court that he had learned life support skills in prison which would aid him in earning a living after his release from prison. He also urged the court to consider the fact that his advocate was not accorded an opportunity to mitigate. The Respondent was represented by learned State Counsel, Ms. Akunja who submitted that the trial court had considered the circumstances of the case including the fact that the deceased was a girlfriend of the Applicant. Further, that the sentence was lenient in that the offence carries a maximum of life imprisonment. In that case, she urged the court not to vary the sentence.
The Applicant was first arraigned in court on 20th January, 2009 under a charge of murder. He was never admitted to bond and the trial proceeded until 24th November, 2014 when the charge sheet was substituted with one of manslaughter. He pleaded guilty to the new charge and was sentenced to the eight years imprisonment. The record of proceedings shows that the Applicant’s mitigation was taken into account before that sentence was passed. However, the court did not consider the time the Applicant had spent in remand before passing the sentence as required under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 7. 10 of the Sentencing Policy Guidelines. Thus, taking into consideration the latter the Applicant has served his sentence.
In the end, the application succeeds. I set aside the remainder of the sentence and order that the Applicant be forthwith set free unless otherwise lawfully held.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi This 16th October, 2017.
G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of;
1. Applicant in person.
2. M/s Sigei for the respondent.