[2018] KEHC 5306 (KLR)
The court held that although the right to legal representation is fundamental and constitutionally protected, the circumstances of this case did not demonstrate that the respondent was denied this right. The record showed the accused pleaded guilty in a language he understood and admitted the facts without...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 5306 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Collins Kiplagat Koech
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 320 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Application for revision declined.
- Judges
- DO Ohungo
- Legal Topics
- Defilement Offence, Plea of Guilty, Right to Legal Representation, Criminal Revision, Fair Trial Rights
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Collins Kiplagat Koech
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision of Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the respondent without informing him of his right to legal representation.
- 2 Whether the issue of right to counsel can be addressed through criminal revision proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although the right to legal representation is fundamental and constitutionally protected, the circumstances of this case did not demonstrate that the respondent was denied this right. The record showed the accused pleaded guilty in a language he understood and admitted the facts without requesting counsel. The court further determined that the issue of whether the accused was properly informed of his right to counsel is not suitable for determination through revision proceedings, which are limited to reviewing the legality and propriety of sentences or orders. Instead, such constitutional issues should be raised on appeal or through a constitutional petition, where...
Court Disposition
Application for revision declined.
Orders
- No revision is ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 320 OF 2018
REPUBLIC..........................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
COLLINS KIPLAGAT KOECH...................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This matter was placed before me for revision under Sec. 364 and 365 of the CPC. The basis of which is to confirm the correctness and propriety of the trial magistrate finding especially conviction and sentence where the convicted individual was sentenced to serve a term of 20 years imprisonment for the offence of defilement. By a letter dated 8th June 2018, J. K. Kiplagat Advocate has on behalf of the convict urged this court to find that the convict was not given a chance to seek legal representation and put in his defence (I am not sure exactly what that implies).
2. The accused (now convict) pleaded guilty to the offence, and from the trial court’s records show that the charge was read over to the accused in Kiswahili – there is no suggestion even in this application for revision that he did not understand Kiswahili. His response was an admission.
3. The facts were then narrated to him and he confirmed them as being correct – at no stage did he indicate that he wished to have legal representation or that some undisclosed source had advised him to plead guilty.
4. Art. 50 (2) (g) provides that;
“Every accused person has the right to a fair trial which includes the right to choose and be represented by an advocate, and be informed of that right promptly.
5. Whereas the applicant raises serious and fundamental Constitutional issues, I do not think this can be addressed by way or revision which under Section 363(1) requires the court to satisfy itself as to the legality correctness, propriety of any sentence, or order reviewed or passed. In my view this is an issue that requires great input by the applicant as well as the Director of Public Prosecution, and not a sweeping statement made regarding right to be informed of his option to engage counsel.
6. The matter would be best addressed either on appeal or by a Constitutional petition where both parties can exhaustively submit on the same.
7. I decline to order any revision.
DELIVERED and DATEDthis 5th day of July at ELDORET.
H. A. OMONDI
JUDGE