[2011] KEHC 3478 (KLR)
The High Court found that while the offence was grave and the injuries to the complainant were severe and permanent, the imposition of a 30-year sentence on a first offender was excessive. The trial court had considered the seriousness of the injuries, but the appellate court held that the sentence should be reduced...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3478 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Patrick Njiru; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 146 &462; of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- sentence reduced
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Grievous Harm, Appeal Against Sentence
- 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
Patrick Njiru
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 30 years imprisonment for grievous harm was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
- 2 Whether the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion on wrong principles or imposed an unreasonable sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that while the offence was grave and the injuries to the complainant were severe and permanent, the imposition of a 30-year sentence on a first offender was excessive. The trial court had considered the seriousness of the injuries, but the appellate court held that the sentence should be reduced in line with established sentencing principles, particularly the general rule against imposing maximum or near-maximum sentences on first offenders unless circumstances are exceptional. The sentence was therefore reduced to 25 years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Court Disposition
sentence reduced
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the trial court is reduced to 25 years imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2005
(Emanating from the Judgment of SRM Siakago
Criminal Case No.462 of 2005)
PATRICK NJIRU………………………………………….APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC……………………………….…………….RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
The appellant was charged with grievous harm contrary to Section 234 of the penal code.The particulars are that on the 18th day of April 2004 at Nguna Sub location in Mbeere District unlawfully did grievous harm to Robert Njeru Kienga. After a full trial, he was convicted and sentenced to serve 30 years imprisonment. He now appeals against sentence only. The appellant contested that the sentence of 30 years is manifestly excessive and urged me to reduce the same. The state contested the appeal against sentence on the grounds that the appellant committed a very serious offence and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
In my understanding an appellate court will not interfere with the discretion of a trial court in the matter of sentence unless it appears that in imposing it, the trial court acted on some wrong principle or that he/she imposed a sentence which is manifestly excessive or out rightly illegal. It is also important to understand an appeal against the severity of a sentence is a matter of fact, which must be closely and clearly taken into consideration.
In this case the appellant was rightly and properly found guilty of causing grievous harm to the complainant. In that regard it is the duty of the appellant to confirm and to ascertain that the sentence imposed was excessive in the light of the facts and circumstances. It is therefore my cardinal duty to find out whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was so unreasonable or manifestly excessive to justify interference by this court. In law, it is unusual to impose maximum sentence on a first offender and it would be wrong to depart from the rule.
In imposing a sentence of 30 years, the trial court took into consideration the injuries suffered by the complainant, which were permanent and life threatening in nature. As a result of the injuries inflicted by the appellant, the complainant remained completely disfigured and blind. The complainant underwent surgery for both eyes but on regained partial sight in the left eye. The right eye lost sight and a consequence, the complainant was exposed to considerable pain, disability and discomfort by the gross and grave omission of the appellant. That is a matter which would remain with the complaint for ever and cannot be taken lightly by this court.
Now having taken into consideration all the factors and circumstances in this matter, I think it is just toallow the appeal against sentence by reducing the sentence imposed by the trial court to 25 years imprisonment from the date of conviction. Orders accordingly.
M. WARSAME
JUDGE
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Embu this 9th day of March 2011.
In the presence of:-
Ms. Matiru for the state and the appellant in person.