[2024] KEHC 6562 (KLR)
The court found that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and requires the sentencing court to consider and deduct the period an accused has spent in custody from the sentence imposed. The trial magistrate failed to do so, and the appellant had spent a total of 217 days in custody during the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 6562 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Julius Gitonga Mutirithia; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal E188 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application to Consider Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- LW Gitari
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Procedure, Time Spent in Custody, Fair Trial 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
Julius Gitonga Mutirithia
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Application to Consider Time Spent in Custody Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the time the appellant spent in custody when imposing sentence.
- 2 Whether the sentence should be reduced to account for the period already served in custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and requires the sentencing court to consider and deduct the period an accused has spent in custody from the sentence imposed. The trial magistrate failed to do so, and the appellant had spent a total of 217 days in custody during the trial. The court held that this period must be deducted from the sentence to ensure compliance with the law and to uphold the appellant's right to a fair trial. The application was therefore meritorious and allowed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The sentence imposed on the appellant shall be reduced by 217 days, being the time spent in custody awaiting trial.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
Mutirithia v Republic (Criminal Appeal E188 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 6562 (KLR) (28 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 6562 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Criminal Appeal E188 of 2022
LW Gitari, J
May 28, 2024
Between
Julius Gitonga Mutirithia
Appellant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The appellant has applied before this court that the time he spent in custody which was not considered by the trial magistrate be taken into account to reduce the sentence.1. The application is based on the provisions of Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 75 Laws of Kenya).2. The respondent did not oppose the application. I have considered the application. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, provides as follows:-“(2)Subject to the provisions of section 38 of the Penal Code every sentence shall be deemed to commence from, and to include the whole of the day of, the date on which it was pronounced, except where otherwise provided in this Code.”3. This section is couched in mandatory terms. As such the trial magistrate or Judge is required to consider the time an accused person has spent in custody while awaiting trial. That period must be taken into account to reduce the sentence which is finally imposed. This is an issue of right to fair trial and the court should consider that period to prevent a situation where the accused person may end up serving a longer sentence than the one intended by the trial court when the sentence and time spent in custody is combined. This was the holding by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ahmad Aboffathi Mohammend & Another v Republic (2015) eKLR the Court of Appeal held that-"Taking into account” the period spent in custody must mean considering that period so that the imposed sentence is reduced proportionately by the period already spent in custody.”The court has a duty to determine whether –-Whether the accused spent time in custody.-If the answer is in the affirmative, determine the period that an accused person spent in.-Reduce the sentence proportionately with the time spent in custody.
2. From the record of the learned trial magistrate, the time the appellant spent in custody was not considered. The prayer by the appellant that the time spent in custody be considered is meritorious. From the record of the trial court, the appellant was remanded in custody as follows:-
3. He was charged in court on 4/9/2019 and remanded in custody upto 25/11/2019 when he was released on bond. That period account for eighty (81) one days. On 24/6/2021 he failed to attend court and warrant of arrest was issued. He was arrested and was on 21/7/2021 and the court remanded him in custody up to 7/12/2021 when his bail was reinstated. The appellant in total spent 217 days in custody in aggregate during his trial. This period should have been taken into account to reduce the sentence.
Conclusion: 4. I allow the application by the appellant. The sentence be reduced by 217 days, the time the appellant spent in custody awaiting trial.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT CHUKA THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024. L.W. GITARIJUDGE