[2024] KEHC 15159 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender and having served a period in custody, was a suitable candidate for a non-custodial sentence. The court considered the objectives of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Guidelines 2023, including rehabilitation and reintegration, and determined that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 15159 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jeremiah Otieno; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E255 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
- Outcome
- Application for sentence review allowed. Custodial sentence substituted with non-custodial sentence under probation.
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Non Custodial Sentence, Probation Orders, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
- 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
Jeremiah Otieno
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted a non-custodial sentence in place of the custodial sentence imposed by the trial court.
- 2 What factors should guide the court in reviewing and substituting the sentence imposed on the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender and having served a period in custody, was a suitable candidate for a non-custodial sentence. The court considered the objectives of sentencing as set out in the Sentencing Guidelines 2023, including rehabilitation and reintegration, and determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary. The court held that the period already served in custody had contributed to the applicant's reform and that supervision under probation, with victim-offender mediation and monitoring, would better serve the interests of justice. The court further held that any re-offending during the probation period would result in the suspension of the...
Court Disposition
Application for sentence review allowed. Custodial sentence substituted with non-custodial sentence under probation.
Orders
- The applicant shall serve a non-custodial sentence for a period of 8 months on both counts under the supervision of the probation officer.
- The probation officer shall undertake victim-offender mediation and follow up on any underlying issues.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Otieno v Republic (Criminal Revision E255 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 15159 (KLR) (3 December 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 15159 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Eldoret
Criminal Revision E255 of 2024
RN Nyakundi, J
December 3, 2024
Between
Jeremiah Otieno
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged with the offence of stealing contrary to section 268(1) as read with section 275 of the Penal code. The particulars of the offence are that on 16th December, 2023 at Duka Mbili Langas Kapseret Sub-County stole mobile phones Nokia G20, Nokia C21 and Tecno pop 5 all valued at Kshs. 87,449/= the property of Gideon Ouma. The applicant equally faced alternative charges of handling stolen property contrary to section 322(1)(2) of the Penal Code, stealing contrary to section 268(1) as read with section 275 of the Penal Code and Malicious damage of property contrary to section 339(1) of the Penal Code.
2. The applicant was found guilty on two counts and discharged on the third count. On the first count he was sentenced to Kshs. 50,000/= and in default 12 months’ imprisonment on the first count. On the second count, the applicant was sentenced to Kshs. 100,000/= and in default 2 years’ imprisonment.
3. The applicant has approached this court pursuant to sections 357,362,364& 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code as construed with Article 50(2) (p) & (q) as conjunctively read with Article 50(6)(a) & (b) of the Constitution.
4. The applicant seeks a sentence review. He prays that he may be allowed to serve a non-custodial sentence. In determining whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence, the court is required to take into account the following factors: -a)Gravity of the offence: - sentence of imprisonment should be avoided for misdemeanour.b)Criminal history of the offender. Taking into account the seriousness of the offences, first offenders should be considered for non-custodial sentence.c)Character of the offender: - non-custodial sentence are best suited for offenders who are already remorseful and receptive to rehabilitative measures.d)Protection of the community: - where the offender is likely to pose a threat to the community.e)Offender’s responsibility to third parties: - where there are people depending on the offender.
5. I have considered the offence in question and the aggravating factors. The sentencing objectives in Kenya have been captured in the Sentencing guidelines 2023 to be the following: -i.Retribution: to punish the offender for his/her criminal conduct in a just manner.ii.Deterrence: to deter the offender from committing a similar offence subsequently as well as to discourage other people from committing similar offences.iii.Rehabilitation: to enable the offender reform from his/her criminal disposition and become a law-abiding person.iv.Restorative justice: to address the needs arising from the criminal conduct such as loss and damages.v.Community protection: to protect the community by incapacitating the offender.vi.Denunciation: to communicate the community’s condemnation of the criminal conduct.vii.Reconciliation: To mend the relationship between the offender, the victim and the community.viii.Reintegration: To facilitate the re-entry of the offender into the society.
6. My considered view is that considering the aforementioned factors and the objectives of sentencing in totality, the applicant ought to serve a non-custodial sentence. I believe the period he has served in custody has shaped his character. I see no reason why he should continue to serve a custodial sentence. In the end, I am inclined to direct that he serves a non-custodial sentence for a period of 8 months on both counts. The same shall be done under the supervision of the probation officer. It is expected that during this period the probation officer shall undertake victim offender mediation, and follow up on any other underlying issues for the applicant to stay away from any criminal activities and that any re-offending of any nature shall suspend the probation order and the court shall be at liberty to resentence the applicant to serve the full term of imprisonment.
SIGNED, DATE AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 3RDDAY OF DECEMBER 2024. …………………………………….R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE