[2023] KEHC 23813 (KLR)
The court declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate, finding that the applicant was not a first offender, having previously been convicted and sentenced for grievous harm. Despite evidence of remorse, family support, and prison reform, the court considered the complainant's continued...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23813 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Erick Kipkoech Ngetich; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E049 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Determination of Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- sentence review declined; original sentence to be served in full
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Threats to Kill, Sentencing Review, Recidivism, Probation Reports
- 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
Erick Kipkoech Ngetich
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Determination of Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is fit to benefit from sentence review under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the applicant's remorse, family support, and prison reform are sufficient grounds for sentence reduction.
- 3 Whether the complainant's continued fear and the applicant's prior conviction affect eligibility for sentence review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial magistrate, finding that the applicant was not a first offender, having previously been convicted and sentenced for grievous harm. Despite evidence of remorse, family support, and prison reform, the court considered the complainant's continued fear and the applicant's criminal history. The court held that these factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances, rendering the applicant unfit to benefit from sentence review. The sentence of four years' imprisonment was upheld, and the applicant was ordered to serve the sentence in full.
Court Disposition
sentence review declined; original sentence to be served in full
Orders
- The application for sentence review is declined.
- The applicant shall serve the sentence of four years' imprisonment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Ngetich v Republic (Criminal Revision E049 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 23813 (KLR) (17 October 2023) (Revision)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23813 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kericho
Criminal Revision E049 of 2023
JK Sergon, J
October 17, 2023
Between
Erick Kipkoech Ngetich
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Revision
1. Erick Kipkoech Ngetich, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant was convicted of the offence of threatening to kill contrary to section 223 (1) the Penal Code cap 63 Laws of Kenya.
2. On 9th February, 2023, Hon. E.W. Karani, the Learned Senior Resident Magistrate sentenced the Applicant to serve four (4) years imprisonment.
3. The proceedings relating to the aforesaid case, that is Kericho CMC Case No. E1060 of 2022 Republic-vs-Erick Kipkoech Ngetich were placed before this Court pursuant to the provisions of section 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4. The Probation Officer filed a sentence review report on 19th July, 2023. In the said report it was noted that the Applicant was remorseful for the offence and was committed to being a law abiding citizen. The family members were ready and willing to welcome him back and assist in his rehabilitation. The Area Chief was of the view that the home environment was favourable, however, the complainant is still bitter with him as he had issued death threats hence he is still fearful for her life. The Area Chief therefore left the matter for the courts discretion. The probation officer noted that the applicant has a fixed abode if released on CSO he will reside at Kaitui Location with his elderly father and his family.
5. The prison authorities stated that the applicant had reformed and that he has attained skills in office maintenance and record keeping. The probation officer noted that the complainant was still fearful for her life and therefore recommended that the court should exercise its discretion in the matter.
6. I have already stated the sentence pronounced by the Learned Senior Resident Magistrate. The Applicant has so far served eight (8) and a half months and is remaining with three (3) years and three (3) and a half months to complete his sentence.
7. I have considered the sentence review report. I have further perused the record and it is apparent that the inmate is not a first offender. He has on a previous occasion been convicted and sentenced to seven (7) years imprisonment for the offence of grievous harm.
8. I find that the inmate is not fit to benefit from the sentence review. I decline to interfere with the sentence imposed in exercise of this Court’s revisionary power. The inmate should serve his sentence in full in prison.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. ................J.K. SERGONJUDGE