[2023] KEHC 17466 (KLR)
The court declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, finding that the applicant had already benefited from leniency, having received a six-year sentence for an offence punishable by life imprisonment. The court held that the aggravated nature of the injuries inflicted required a deterrent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 17466 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jerevasio Muthaura; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E010 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application for revision declined
- Judges
- EM Muriithi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Grievous Harm, Probation and Sentence Review, Prison Decongestion
- 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
Jerevasio Muthaura
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to early release from prison under the decongestion exercise.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive or should be interfered with on revision.
- 3 Whether the recommendation of the probation officer for early release is binding on the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court, finding that the applicant had already benefited from leniency, having received a six-year sentence for an offence punishable by life imprisonment. The court held that the aggravated nature of the injuries inflicted required a deterrent sentence, and the recommendation for early release by the probation officer was not binding. There was no justification for further reduction or revision of the sentence in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
application for revision declined
Orders
- The application for revision is declined.
- Order accordingly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Muthaura v Republic (Criminal Revision E010 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 17466 (KLR) (16 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 17466 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Revision E010 of 2023
EM Muriithi, J
May 16, 2023
Between
Jerevasio Muthaura
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Applicant was convicted and sentenced to serve imprisonment for six (6) years on 4/11/2019 for the offence of causing grievous harm contrary to section 234 of thePenal Code.
2. His previous quest for review of the sentence was declined by the court on 17/6/2021. He is once again before this court under the decongestion exercise seeking an early release from prison on the grounds that he is remorseful and has since undergone counselling and training. He tells the court that he is due to be released on 4/11/2023
3. The probation officer has indicated in her sentence review report that, the Applicant “is suitable for sentence review and probation order is recommended for him.” It is expressed in that report that, “the victim in this matter has no issue if he is granted an early release.”
4. Despite the court having directed the Respondent to file submissions, the same were not filed.
5. As per the P3 form, the Applicant indeed inflicted very severe injuries to the victim being deep cut to the left cheek, traumatic amputation of the left forearm, traumatic deep cuts to the left leg and deep cut to the left buttock of his aunt. The sentence of imprisonment for 6 years meted out to the Applicant was lenient considering the penalty prescribed under section 234 of the Penal Code is imprisonment for life.
6. Although the court is required under section 176 of the CPC to promote reconciliation and settlement of cases of common assault and offences of personal nature, the offence should not be aggravated as in this case. While the probation officer recommends the early release of the Applicant from prison, that recommendation does not bind this court. On the facts of this case, the court is satisfied that the Applicant already benefitted from the trial court’s leniency when he only got six years for an offence which attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
7. The circumstances of this case require a deterrent sentence and, on the principle of Wanjema V R(1973) EA 493, the court does not find any reason for interfering with the sentencing decision of the trial court.
Orders 8. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Revision is declined.Order accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2023. EDWARD M. MURIITHIJUDGEAPPEARANCES:Applicant in person.Mr. Masila, Advocate for the Respondent.