[2024] KEHC 13209 (KLR)
The court held that the provision of handwriting samples by the accused for forensic examination does not infringe the right to a fair trial or the privilege against self-incrimination, provided there is no evidence of compulsion or objection at the time of collection. The privilege against self-incrimination...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 13209 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Arnold Kiplangat Rotich
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case E027 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Ruling on Objection During Trial
- Outcome
- objection dismissed
- Judges
- HI Ong'udi
- Legal Topics
- Right to Fair Trial, Self Incrimination, Admissibility of Evidence, Handwriting Samples
- 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
Arnold Kiplangat Rotich
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Ruling on Objection During Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether obtaining handwriting samples from the accused without his consent infringes the right against self-incrimination.
- 2 Whether the production of the examiner's report based on such samples violates the accused's right to a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the provision of handwriting samples by the accused for forensic examination does not infringe the right to a fair trial or the privilege against self-incrimination, provided there is no evidence of compulsion or objection at the time of collection. The privilege against self-incrimination primarily protects against compelled oral confessions or declarations, not the provision of physical samples for investigative purposes. Since the accused did not object or claim coercion when the samples were taken, and the defence failed to challenge the investigating officer on this issue during cross-examination, the objection to the production of the examiner's report was found...
Court Disposition
objection dismissed
Orders
- The objection to the production of the examiner's report is dismissed.
- PW10 will be recalled to complete his testimony.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Republic v Rotich (Criminal Case E027 of 2020) [2024] KEHC 13209 (KLR) (30 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 13209 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Criminal Case E027 of 2020
HI Ong'udi, J
October 30, 2024
Between
Republic
Prosecutor
and
Arnold Kiplangat Rotich
Accused
Ruling
1. In the process of testifying before this court on 14th October, 2024, PW10 sought to produce his report, on documents he had examined. It was at this point that Mr. Ikua for the accused objected to its production on the ground that the accused’s hand writing samples were taken without the accused’s consent yet they are incriminating.
2. Further that no order for sample taking was sought for from the court. He based this objection on Article 50(2) of the Constitution. He finally cited the case of Republic V Mark Lloyd Stevenson [2016] eKLR paragraphs 30-36 in support.
3. M/s E. Okok prosecution counsel in response submitted that PW10 only carried out his work as an Examiner of the documents that were handed to him by the DCIO. She urged that what was being raised should have been put to the investigating officer.
4. I have had an opportunity of reading the ruling by Ngugi J (as he then was) in Republic V Mark Llyod Stevenson (supra). It related to an email received by a witness plus an attached document. The same had never been authenticated. Secondly Ngugi J found that the email dated 9th March, 2011 was wrongly excluded as a “confession” for the email was authored long before the accused was charged with an offence. It had nothing to do with sample taking.
5. In this case most of the witnesses referred to the letters found at the scene of crime. The police took possession of the letters and in the course of the investigations took handwriting samples from the accused who is the suspect for the purpose of identifying who wrote those letters.
6. In the case of Richard Dickson Ogendo & 2 others V Attorney General & 5 others [2014] Majanja J (now deceased) status thus:“To my mind the privilege of an accused person not to incriminate himself, protects against compulsory oral examination for the purposes of extorting unwilling confessions or declarations inflicting the accused in the commission of the crime”.
7. Similar observation were made in:i.Republic V John Kithyululu [2016] eKLRii.Republic V Amos Kipyegon Cheruiyot [2016] eKLRiii.Republic V Timothy Mwendwa Gichuru & 2 others [2017]
8. In the present case the recovery of the letters at the scene was not with the assistance of the accused person. The accused had nothing to do with the recovery for one to say he gave incriminating evidence.
9. The police had a duty to know who authored the recovered letter/letters. At no point from the beginning of this case did the accused claim to have been forced to give his handwriting samples.
10. Lastly the Investigating officer who had the handwriting samples taken testified before this court as PW9. He was never asked in cross-examination any single question on the way the samples were taken or why they were taken
11. Provision of the samples for testing is part of the investigation to establish who wrote the letter/letters found at the scene.
12. My finding is that provisions of handwriting samples does not infringe on the right to fair trial. For that reason, I find no merit in the objection raised which is hereby dismissed. PW10 will be recalled to complete his testimony.
13. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 IN OPEN COURT AT NAKURU.H. I. ONG’UDIJUDGE