[2018] KEHC 9787 (KLR)
The trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion by not explicitly considering whether the sentence should be reduced by the period the applicant spent in remand custody. The High Court held that even where minimum sentences are prescribed, the period spent in custody must be deducted from the sentence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9787 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Kamande Mbugua; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 676 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Judicial Discretion
- 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 Kamande Mbugua
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred by failing to deduct the period spent in remand custody from the applicant's sentence.
- 2 Whether the Sexual Offences Act minimum sentences preclude reduction of sentence by time spent in custody.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion by not explicitly considering whether the sentence should be reduced by the period the applicant spent in remand custody. The High Court held that even where minimum sentences are prescribed, the period spent in custody must be deducted from the sentence unless the court expressly states otherwise. The application for revision was allowed, and the applicant's sentence of ten years was ordered to be reduced by the period already spent in custody (two years, six months, and twenty days).
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The sentence of ten years imprisonment is upheld but shall be reduced by two years, six months, and twenty days, being the period the applicant was in custody before sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 676 OF 2018
PETER KAMANDE MBUGUA....................APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Peter Kamande Mbugua, hereafter the Applicant filed the present application by of a Chamber Summons dated 7th June, 2018 seeking the review of the sentence so that the period of 18 months spent in custody prior to the sentence be taken into account. The application was supported by his own affidavit. He deponed that he was suffering from TB and had been admitted twice to the clinic at Kenyatta Hospital.
2. Ms. Akunja did not oppose the application. She submitted that the court is under a duty to take into account the period the convict spent in remand custody before passing the sentence.
3. The Applicant was convicted of committing an indecent act with a child on 17th March, 2017 before being sentenced on 5th April, 2017. The court sentenced the Applicant to 10 years imprisonment and among the factors considered in its sentencing was the time spent in remand.
4. Sentencing is at the discretion of the trial court although under the Sexual Offences Act the discretion is fettered by the provision of mandatory minimum sentences. Sitting under its revisionary powers, this court will not interfere with a sentence passed by the trial unless it is of the view that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion in sentencing. See Riyaadh Abdul Hafedh v Republic [2006] eKLRwhere the court stated-
“While exercising its discretion in sentence, it is advisable that reasons be given on record to show the trial court considered to determine the kind of sentence awarded.”
5. In the present case, the court did sentence the Applicant to the minimum available sentence of 10 years imprisonment after considering the remand custodial term, the favorable pre-sentencing report and the mitigating circumstances. What the court failed to state was whether, even if it took into account the period spent in custody, that that period would be deducted from the sentence passed. The mere fact that the Sexual Offences Act sets minimum sentences is not a bar to reducing the sentence by the time spent in custody. Conversely, if the court was of the view that the sentence should not be reduced by the time spent in custody, it should state so.
6. The trial court herein improperly exercised its discretion by failing to consider that the sentence should be reduced by time spent in custody. After all, the Applicant was a first offender and the Pre-bail Report was favourable. Accordingly the application succeeds. I uphold the sentence passed of ten years but order that it shall be reduced by two years six months and twenty days, being the period the Applicant was in custody before the sentence was passed. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018.
G.W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Applicant in person.
2. Mr. Momanyi for the Respondent.