[2022] KEHC 12897 (KLR)
The court found that the application for sentence reduction or probation was without merit. The trial magistrate had already considered the period spent in custody and the applicant's youth when passing sentence. Despite the Probation Officer's recommendation for community service, the applicant's status as a repeat...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 12897 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Karenjo Muturi; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Naivasha
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application E067 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Reduction and Probation Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LN Mutende
- Legal Topics
- Defilement, Sentencing Principles, Sexual Offences Act, Probation and Custody, Repeat Offender, Community Service
- 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
Peter Karenjo Muturi
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Criminal Application / Ruling on Sentence Reduction and Probation Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a reduction of sentence for the offence of defilement.
- 2 Whether the applicant should be released on probation or community service given his status as a repeat offender.
- 3 Whether the period spent in custody prior to sentencing was properly considered.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for sentence reduction or probation was without merit. The trial magistrate had already considered the period spent in custody and the applicant's youth when passing sentence. Despite the Probation Officer's recommendation for community service, the applicant's status as a repeat offender and the statutory minimum sentence for defilement under Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act precluded further reduction or substitution of the custodial sentence. The court emphasized that the law prescribes a minimum sentence of twenty years for defilement of a child aged twelve to fifteen, and the applicant had already received a sentence below the statutory...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for reduction of sentence or release on probation is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
Muturi v Republic (Miscellaneous Criminal Application E067 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 12897 (KLR) (6 September 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 12897 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Naivasha
Miscellaneous Criminal Application E067 of 2021
LN Mutende, J
September 6, 2022
Between
Peter Karenjo Muturi
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(From Original Sexual Offence Case No. E20 of 2019 of Engineer Court)
Ruling
1. Peter Karenjo Muturi, the Applicant, was charged with the offence of Defilement Contrary to Section 8(1) as read with 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, following allegations of having molested a minor aged 14 years, NMW.
2. Having been taken through full trial, he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to serve three (3) years imprisonment.
3. Through an application filed herein on March 10, 2021, he seeks reduction of the sentence, and, in the alternative he prays to be released on probation. The application is premised on grounds that; he is remorseful; he hails from a poor background, he is the sole breadwinner of his family and has spent one (1) year, eight (8) months in custody prior to being sentenced.
4. A Probation Officer’s Report was filed following a social inquiry carried out. It was indicated that his family were willing to support in his rehabilitation. However, the victim was not reached. It was established that the applicant is a repeat offender; having committed similar offences before. That he was placed on probation for a period of two (2) years but he re-offended while serving the sentence. That notwithstanding it was recommended that he could perform Community Service.
5. At the hearing the applicant urged the court to release him as he was due to be released in a week’s time.
6. Section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act provides this;“A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child between the age of twelve and fifteen years is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years”.
7. Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides this;“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.Provided that where the person sentenced under sub section (1) has prior, to such sentence shall take account of the period spent in custody.”
8. In meting out the sentence the learned trial magistrate took into account the period the applicant was in remand custody, and, the fact of the applicant having been a young man.
9. In the premises the application is bereft of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
10. It is so ordered.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT NAIVASHA THIS 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022. L. MUTENDEJUDGE