[2021] KEHC 6871 (KLR)
The court determined that, despite the recommendation for a non-custodial sentence in the pre-sentence and victim impact reports, the nature of the offence—committed brazenly and in the context of a longstanding land dispute—required a custodial sentence to serve the objectives of deterrence and public safety. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6871 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Defendant: Titus Kimathi Murea
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Case 32 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Case / Sentencing
- Outcome
- accused sentenced to 15 years imprisonment from date of arrest
- Judges
- CA Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Victim Impact Reports, Non Custodial Sentences, Deterrence, Custodial Sentences
- 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
Titus Kimathi Murea
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case / Sentencing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a non-custodial sentence is appropriate given the circumstances of the offence.
- 2 What weight should be given to the victim impact report in sentencing.
- 3 How the period already spent in custody should be considered in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that, despite the recommendation for a non-custodial sentence in the pre-sentence and victim impact reports, the nature of the offence—committed brazenly and in the context of a longstanding land dispute—required a custodial sentence to serve the objectives of deterrence and public safety. The court found the reports informative but not determinative, especially as they lacked direct input from the immediate victims (the deceased's children). The period already spent in custody since arrest was considered, and the sentence was ordered to run from the date of arrest. The court concluded that a non-custodial sentence would not be appropriate in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
accused sentenced to 15 years imprisonment from date of arrest
Orders
- The accused is sentenced to serve a jail term of 15 years to be computed from 9/2/2014.
- Right of appeal explained.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO. 32 OF 2014
REPUBLIC...................................................PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
TITUS KIMATHI MUREA....................................ACCUSED
SENTENCE
1. After the conviction dated the 14/12/2020, there was an order by the court that a pre-sentence report and a victim impact assessment be complied and filed by the Probation Officer.
2. That order culminated in stet report by one J.M Kagucia, the Sub County Probation Officer, Maua, dated the 10/2/2021. In the report the perennial land dispute between the family of the accused and that of the deceased is underscored as well as the fact that the land is indeed ancestral to both families. It is further disclosed in the report that there are negotiations ongoing with a view to a lasting reconciliation so that the disputed land is subdivided for the sake of lasting peace.
3. It concludes by recommending that the accused, be considered for non-custodial sentence as a way of amending the broken relationship. I however note that the superbly written report does not reveal the number and identities of the relatives interviewed and how close they are related to the family of the deceased in the case. Infact it is revealed that the deceased left a widow who died soon after him out of illness and six children, but no mention is made of any attempt to interview the said children as the immediate victim of the heinous offence after the deceased.
4. The victim impact report is merely informative to the court of the social context of the persons related to the case but never intended to override the courts discretion in sentencing.
5. All in all, I have given due regard to the said victim impact report as well as the circumstances under which the offence was committed and I do determine that a non- custodial sentence may not be appropriate in the circumstances in that part of the object of criminal justice system is to protect the safety by deterrence. The offence was brazenly committed.
6. Having done so, I have also taken into account the fact that the accused has been in custody ever since his arrest on the 9/2/2014.
7. Having put all into consideration, I do sentence the accused to serve a jail term of 15 years to be computed from the 9/2/2014.
8. It is so ordered. Right of appeal explained.
Patrick J.O Otieno
Judge
5/5/2021