[2021] KEHC 1722 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 1722 (KLR)

The court found that the sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed on the applicants for preparation to commit a felony was not excessive, given the statutory minimum of 7 years and maximum of 15 years under Section 308(1) of the Penal Code. Although the Community Service Order Officer recommended a non-custodial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 1722 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Moses Muriithi; Applicant: Josphat Mutethia; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Revision E222 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence
Outcome
application for revision of sentence declined
Judges
EM Muriithi
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Preparation to Commit Felony, Non Custodial Sentences
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Preparation to Commit Felony Non Custodial Sentences

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Muriithi

Applicant

Josphat Mutethia

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Sentence

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 2 years imprisonment for preparation to commit a felony was excessive and warranted revision to a non-custodial sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the gravity of the offence and the circumstances justified a deterrent custodial sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed on the applicants for preparation to commit a felony was not excessive, given the statutory minimum of 7 years and maximum of 15 years under Section 308(1) of the Penal Code. Although the Community Service Order Officer recommended a non-custodial sentence, the court held that the gravity of the offence and the circumstances, including the applicants being armed with a dangerous weapon with intent to commit robbery with violence, required a deterrent custodial sentence. The absence of an appeal by the prosecution on the leniency of the sentence meant the court would not disturb the sentence, but it declined to revise it to...

Court Disposition

application for revision of sentence declined

Orders

  • The application for revision of the sentence is declined.