[2012] KEHC 4650 (KLR)
The court found that the risk of interference with witnesses, particularly minor children of the accused who are also the primary witnesses, constitutes a compelling reason to deny bail. The absence of an established witness protection scheme for such vulnerable witnesses further exacerbates the risk. The court held...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4650 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Ben Kipyegon Birir
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 30 March 2012
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 72 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application Pending Trial
- Outcome
- bail application denied
- Judges
- MJA Emukule
- Legal Topics
- Bail Pending Trial, Witness Interference, Child Witness Protection
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Republic
Applicant
Ben Kipyegon Birir
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Bail Application Pending Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the accused should be granted bail pending trial in light of potential interference with witnesses who are minor children.
- 2 Whether the absence of a witness protection scheme for minor family members constitutes a compelling reason to deny bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the risk of interference with witnesses, particularly minor children of the accused who are also the primary witnesses, constitutes a compelling reason to deny bail. The absence of an established witness protection scheme for such vulnerable witnesses further exacerbates the risk. The court held that, in these circumstances, the constitutional right to bail is not absolute and may be curtailed to protect the integrity of the trial and the welfare of minor witnesses. The application for bail was therefore declined, and the matter was directed to proceed to hearing.
Court Disposition
bail application denied
Orders
- The accused's application for bail dated 20th August 2011 is declined.
- The matter shall proceed to hearing on 18th & 19th July 2012.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\"; mso-style-parent:\"\"; font-size:10. 0pt;\"Times New Roman\";} </style> <![endif]REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 72 OF 2008
REPUBLIC………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
BEN KIPYEGON BIRIR……………………………………………….ACCUSED
RULING
The Accused herein was arraigned in court on 9th June 2008, and only two witnesses have testified since then.The accused is husband to the deceased and PW2 is his son, then aged 13 years of age. His daughter, a child of about 8 years of age when the incident occurred and about 10 years as of 12th October, 2010 when she was called to testify against the accused(her father)was brought screaming. It has therefore been difficult to get her to testify.
Ms Idagwa learned State Counsel consequently opposed the accused's application dated 25th August 2011 and filed on 30th August 2011 for release pending trial. Counsel submitted that the State intends to call the daughter, and that if the accused is released it would be obvious that the accused will interfere with the witness. The release of the accused would cause serious psychological anguish to the accused's son who has already testified, and the daughter who is yet to testify. Counsel submitted that the accused has the statements and he knows there is overwhelming evidence against him, and there is good reason for absconding.
Article 49(1) of the Constitution is clear as to the rights of the accused to bail. Bail, I hold, is not automatic in respect of offences for which the punishment is more than six months. For such offences however, the law of the Constitution requires compelling reasons for not releasing the accused on bail.
Most cases cited stipulate that the conditions for bail must be such that the accused will turn up for trial, and that they must report to court every so often pending their trial. Some of the other standard conditions for release pending trial include no interference with witnesses. Whereas that condition has value in respect of independent witnesses, the condition is virtually meaningless where the offence is committed against a member of the family, witnesses are members of the family, and the accused when released will live among those members of the family. I think the situation is intolerable where the witnesses are minor children of the accused. There is no known or established scheme for protection of such witnesses.
On 7th April 2011, Mr. Ombati who was holding brief for Mr. Mugambi counsel for the accused indicated that the accused wished to plead to a lesser charge, but the State had declined the offer, and chose to maintain the charge of murder. That would have been an option for the accused.
For reasons primarily of interference with witnesses, in the absence of any scheme for their protection, I decline to grant the applicant's application for bail dated 20th August 2011, and direct the matter proceed to hearing on 18th & 19th July 2012.
I also direct that the Deputy Registrar of this court urgently install a moveable screen where a vulnerable witness such as a minor is protected from the glare of an accused person such as a father in this case.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nakuru this 30th day of March, 2012
M. J. ANYARA EMUKULE
JUDGE