Republic v MW [2021] KEHC 2140 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 2140 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
- Case number
- Criminal Revision E008 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
- Case number
- Criminal Revision E008 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondent, a 15-year-old first offender who pleaded guilty to possession of bhang, had already spent five months in remand under difficult circumstances, including pregnancy. The court considered the Probation Officer’s report, the willingness of the respondent’s mother to provide care, and the commitment of the Children’s Officer to monitor her welfare. The court held that further detention or probation would not serve the interests of justice or the respondent’s rehabilitation. Instead, the time already served was deemed sufficient deterrence and punishment. The court emphasized the importance of giving the respondent an opportunity to reform, return to school, and reintegrate into society under proper supervision.
Court disposition
Sentence reviewed; respondent ordered released from prison to her mother.
Orders
- The respondent M.W. is forthwith released from prison to the custody of her mother D.W.
- The Children’s Officer, Gilgil Sub-County, Mr. Osoro, is to monitor the respondent and ensure her return to school after delivery.
- The order is to be served upon the Children’s Officer for reference and execution.
02
Material facts
Parties
Republic
Applicant Counsel: Ms MaingiM.W.
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Street Value of Bhang: KES 560
- Months Spent in Remand: 5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed on the juvenile respondent was appropriate in light of her circumstances.
- 02
Whether continued detention or probation was in the best interests of the respondent and consistent with the law.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Ms. Maingi for the applicant submitted that the respondent, having already spent five months in remand and being pregnant, should be released from remand under probation to complete her sentence. She argued that the respondent's mother was not a suitable guardian due to her alcoholism and inability to provide proper care or ensure the respondent's return to school after delivery. The prosecution requested the court to involve the Probation Officer and the Children’s Officer to safeguard the respondent’s welfare.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not make formal submissions but was represented in court. The Probation Officer reported that the respondent's mother was now willing to take responsibility for her and ensure her return to school after delivery. The Children’s Officer also committed to monitoring the respondent’s welfare and educational reintegration.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 191 of the Children Act; Probation of Offenders Act; case law on juvenile sentencing.
Sentencing of juveniles should prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration over punitive measures, especially where the offender demonstrates willingness to reform and has supportive guardianship.
- 02
Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Time already spent in custody should be considered in determining the proportionality and sufficiency of the sentence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondent, a 15-year-old first offender who pleaded guilty to possession of bhang, had already spent five months in remand under difficult circumstances, including pregnancy. The court considered the Probation Officer’s report, the willingness of the respondent’s mother to provide care, and the commitment of the Children’s Officer to monitor her welfare. The court held that further detention or probation would not serve the interests of justice or the respondent’s rehabilitation. Instead, the time already served was deemed sufficient deterrence and punishment. The court emphasized the importance of giving the respondent an opportunity to reform, return to school, and reintegrate into society under proper supervision.
Obiter and limits
- The respondent's predicament was largely due to lack of proper parental guidance and adverse social circumstances.
- Being pregnant at a young age is a challenge, but with proper support, the respondent can positively change her life trajectory.
- The involvement of the Children’s Officer and the respondent’s mother is crucial to her successful reintegration and continued education.
Court disposition
Sentence reviewed; respondent ordered released from prison to her mother.
- The respondent M.W. is forthwith released from prison to the custody of her mother D.W.
- The Children’s Officer, Gilgil Sub-County, Mr. Osoro, is to monitor the respondent and ensure her return to school after delivery.
- The order is to be served upon the Children’s Officer for reference and execution.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIVASHA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. E008 OF 2021
REPUBLIC......APPLICANT
VERSUS
MW.............RESPONDENT
(Being a Revision from Original Conviction and Sentence in Naivasha CM’s Criminal Case No. E907 of 2021 by Hon. Y. Barasa (SRM)).
RULING
1. The Subject was charged with being in possession of bhang contrary to Section 3 (1) as read with Section 3 (2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic SubstancesControl Act No. 4 of 1994. The particulars of the offence were that on the 2nd June, 2021 at Gilgil Township in Gilgil Sub-County within Nakuru County, she was found in possession of substance suspected to be Cannabis Sativa (bhang) to wit seven (7) rolls which was not medically prepared with a street value of Kshs 560/=.
2. The Subject was convicted on her own plea of guilty. And after a Probation Officer’s Report was presented in court she was sentenced to 3 years on probation after being found to be pregnant. Subsequent to sentencing the Probation Officer recommended that after she gave birth she would be admitted at Siaya Borstal Hostel. It was upon disclosure that the Subject was pregnant, that the learned trial magistrate directed that the file be placed before the High Court for review of the sentence.
3. Before me, was Ms. Maingi for the Applicant. She made a request in her submission that the Subject be released from remand under probation to complete the sentence. Ms. Maingi informed the court that the mother to the Subject was also a drunkard which would make it difficult to release the Subject to her. She opined that the mother would not be able to take care of her in her state or follow up to make sure she goes to school after delivery. The court informed the prosecution to reach out to a Probation Officer who would in turn reach out to the mother of the Subject to discuss the welfare of the subject.
4. It was the view of this court that since the Subject had spent five (5) months in remand, substituting the sentence and releasing her on probation would further aggravate her situation because she had overstayed in remand in very unfortunate circumstances.
5. Thereafter, the Probation Officer Ms. Teresia informed the court that she had had a discussion with the mother of the Subject who attended subsequent court proceedings and who was willing to take care of the Subject by sustaining her and ensure that she goes back to school after delivery.
6. The Probation Officer also informed the court that she had reached out to the Children’s Officer, one Mr. O of Gilgil Sub-County who committed to take care of the subject and ensure that she goes back to school after delivery.
7. I have considered the facts of the case and the background check of the Subject informed by a Probation Officer’s Report dated 4th November, 2021. It is clear that the Subject found herself in the situation that she is in because of lack of proper parental guidance. More so, because her mother is said to live off selling illegal brews. Nevertheless, the mother has accepted the situation of the Subject and the Subject too is willing to reform. The view of this court is that the Subject who is15 years should be given an opportunity to reform especially now her mother is willing to guide her.
8. She has been in custody since June 2021 and her attitude towards change is positive. Being pregnant is the flip side of her life. But the court is of the view that with proper guidance she can be able to go back to school after delivery. It is therefore prudent in the circumstances that the five (5) months plus that she has been in custody be sufficient deterrence.
9. In the premises, I hereby order that the Subject be forthwith released from prison to her mother DW. The Children’s Officer Gilgil Sub-County, Mr. Osoro is advised to keep an eye on her to ensure that she goes back to school after delivery. The order should be served upon him for reference and execution of the order.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIVASHA THIS 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
G. W. NGENYE-MACHARIA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
1. Ms Maingi for the Applicant
2. M.W. the Respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.