Republic v Stephen Bunnet Simion [2017] KEHC 4387 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4387 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- AM Cockar
- Case number
- Criminal Case 17 of 2014
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- AM Cockar
- Case number
- Criminal Case 17 of 2014
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that despite the accused's positive family background, lack of prior convictions, and the time already spent in custody, the circumstances of the offence were grave. The accused, a police officer, negligently handled a loaded firearm, resulting in the death of the deceased. The court was particularly concerned by the accused's conduct after the shooting: failing to render assistance to the victim, not reporting the incident as required by police procedure, and attempting to cover up the shooting by replacing the spent ammunition. These aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The court held that a non-custodial sentence would not suffice given the seriousness of the offence and the accused's breach of public trust. Accordingly, the court sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
Orders
- The accused is sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
- The accused has a right of appeal against conviction and sentence within 14 days.
- The defence to be supplied with typed copies of the proceedings, judgment, and sentence after payment of necessary charges.
02
Material facts
Parties
Republic
ApplicantStephen Bunnet Simion
Defendant Counsel: Mr. OchakoAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment Term (years): 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Case / Sentencing Ruling After Conviction
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
What is the appropriate sentence for the accused convicted of manslaughter contrary to section 202 of the Penal Code.
- 02
Whether the circumstances of the offence and the accused's personal circumstances justify a non-custodial sentence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution treated the accused as a first offender. No victim impact statement was provided due to inability to reach the deceased's family. The prosecution did not oppose the mitigation but relied on the court's discretion for sentencing.
- Respondent
- The defence, through Mr. Ochako, submitted that the accused is 39 years old, married with four children, and the sole breadwinner for his family, including siblings and a mentally challenged sister. He prayed for a non-custodial sentence, emphasizing the accused's positive family background and lack of prior convictions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 205, Penal Code (Cap 63)
A person convicted of manslaughter is liable to imprisonment for life, but the court has discretion to impose a lesser sentence based on the circumstances.
- 02
General sentencing principles under Kenyan law
Mitigating factors such as being a first offender, family responsibilities, and time spent in custody may be considered in sentencing.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that despite the accused's positive family background, lack of prior convictions, and the time already spent in custody, the circumstances of the offence were grave. The accused, a police officer, negligently handled a loaded firearm, resulting in the death of the deceased. The court was particularly concerned by the accused's conduct after the shooting: failing to render assistance to the victim, not reporting the incident as required by police procedure, and attempting to cover up the shooting by replacing the spent ammunition. These aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating circumstances. The court held that a non-custodial sentence would not suffice given the seriousness of the offence and the accused's breach of public trust. Accordingly, the court sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment.
Obiter and limits
- The loss of employment following conviction is not sufficient punishment for the offence committed.
- The absence of a victim impact statement was due to the probation officer's inability to contact the deceased's family, not a lack of effort.
Court disposition
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
- The accused is sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
- The accused has a right of appeal against conviction and sentence within 14 days.
- The defence to be supplied with typed copies of the proceedings, judgment, and sentence after payment of necessary charges.
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 NAIROBI
CRIMINAL CASE NO 17 0F 2014
LESIIT, J
REPUBLIC……………………….………………………..PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
STEPHEN BUNNET SIMION……….....………….……………ACCUSED
RULING ON SENTENCE
1. The accused was convicted of manslaughter contrary to section 202 of the penal code after a full trial.
2. The sentence for the offence of manslaughter is provided under section 205 of the Penal Code. It stipulates that a person convicted of manslaughter is liable to be imprisoned for life.
3. I have considered that the accused was arraigned in court on 10th February 2014 and remained in custody until his release on bond on September 2015. He had therefore been in custody for one year and six months.
4. I have considered that the Prosecution has treated the accused as a first offender.
5. The court thereafter called for a Probation Officers Pre-Sentence Report. The Report was filed on 30th May 2017. That Report is considered. It has a personal back ground of the accused, his attitude towards the offence and a Home Report all on the accused.
6. The Report shows that the accused is 39 years of age, is married with four children all of tender age. He has siblings who depend on him including a mentally challenged sister.
7. The family of the accused gave a positive report about him and speak of his good conduct.
8. The Pre-Sentence Report does not include a victim impact statement. The Probation Officer explains that he was unable to get the investigating officer of this case to lead him to the family of the deceased.
9. I have also considered the submission of Mr. Ochako in mitigation on behalf of the accused. He states accused is aged 39 years and is married with four children and is the sole breadwinner of the family. He states further that the accused has siblings who are wholly dependent on him including a mentally challenged sister. He prays for a non-custodial sentence.
10. I have considered the circumstances of this offence and I take a very serious view of it. The evidence before the court portrays the accused and his colleague PW10 as a well-known squad which when seen on patrol near bus stages sent a clear message to PSV drivers and conductors alike that they must part with some token.
11. What is clear is that the material day was no different. Accused and PW10 were on Spive Duties. They were therefore there to prevent crime and arrest criminal offenders. Even though nothing stopped them from arresting persons with offences other than criminal, they were on a freak of their own, arresting touts and conductors for operating as conductors without PSV uniform and generally creating fear in them including PW2 who was sent away at gunpoint.
12. On the shooting in question the evidence is clear that the accused held a fully loaded pistol, also cocked it ready to shoot when he says he accidentally pressed the trigger and released ammunition which hit and killed the deceased.
13. My greatest concern is not just the negligent handling of the pistol but three other points.
i. That after realizing he shot the deceased, the accused let him fall down to the tarmac and allowed PW1 to continue driving the vehicle. The accused had no concern for the deceased and made no attempt to check on his condition to find out if he could have been taken to hospital to save his life.
ii. The accused did not make a Report of the incident even though as a police officer who was on duty he was fully aware that even where no one is injured any shooting incident must be entered in the Occurrence Book and reported to seniors.
iii. The accused tried to cover up his action by replacing the ammunition he fired with another from unknown source.
14. Especially for these three reasons, I find that a non-custodial will not suffice in this case. I am fully aware that the accused will lose his job after this conviction. That loss is not sufficient punishment for what the accused did in this case.
15. Having carefully considered all these factors, I will sentence the accused to an imprisonment term of 3 years.
16. The accused has a right of appeal against the conviction and sentence within 14 days of today.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017.
LESIIT, J
JUDGE
Order
The defence be supplied with typed copies of the proceedings, judgment and sentence after payment of necessary charges.
LESIIT, J
JUDGE
8/6/17
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.