[2020] KEHC 7892 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any legal or factual basis for a further review of their sentences. The sentences imposed during re-sentencing were lawful and based on a proper evaluation of each applicant's circumstances. The court held that equality and freedom from discrimination do not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 7892 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Richard Oloo Otieno; Applicant: Richard Oricho Onyango; Applicant: Jared Ochieng Jura; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 76 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Review, Equality Before Law, Discrimination Claims, Resentencing, Rehabilitation in Prison
- 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
Richard Oloo Otieno
Applicant
Richard Oricho Onyango
Applicant
Jared Ochieng Jura
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Review of Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a further review of their sentences on grounds of equality and freedom from discrimination.
- 2 Whether rehabilitation or illness while in prison constitutes a basis for sentence review.
- 3 Whether differences in sentences for similar offences amount to discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any legal or factual basis for a further review of their sentences. The sentences imposed during re-sentencing were lawful and based on a proper evaluation of each applicant's circumstances. The court held that equality and freedom from discrimination do not require identical sentences for similar offences in different cases, provided the sentencing process is lawful and reasoned. Rehabilitation or illness in prison does not automatically entitle a convict to a reduced sentence. The application for review was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for review of sentence is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
CRIMINAL REV. NO. 76 OF 2019
RICHARD OLOO OTIENO ............................................ 1ST APPLICANT
RICHARD ORICHO ONYANGO ...................................2ND APPLICANT
JARED OCHIENG JURA ................................................3RD APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
REPUBLIC ........................................................................... RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicants, RICHARD OLOO OTIENO, RICHARD ORICHO ONYANGOand JARED OCHIENG JURAhave sought the review of the sentence which this court handed down to each of them during a hearing on re-sentencing.
1. They have asked the court to give consideration to Equality and Freedom from Discrimination. Although it is not clear why they consider themselves to be victims of either inequality or of discrimination, I presume that they mean that some other persons who had originally been sentenced to death, but who were thereafter re-sentenced, had been given lower sentences.
2. In my considered view, each case must always be considered within its own facts and circumstances.
3. If the court handed down a sentence which was lawful, and gave appropriate reasons for the said sentence, it cannot be said that the person who had been so sentenced was either discriminated against or was treated in an inequal manner, just because in a separate case, a different person was given a lesser sentence for the same kind of offence.
4. Inequality and discrimination may arise if accused persons, who were tried in the same case, and whose involvement in the crime was similar, were accorded different sentences, without the court giving appropriate reasons to explain such differences in the sentences.
5. When a person held the considered view that the court had erred, in law or otherwise, in the sentence it handed down, the person could consider challenging the decision through an appeal.
6. The fact that the person had undergone rehabilitation in prison, is not a basis for asserting that he has a right to have the sentence reviewed.
7. Similarly, when a person became sick whilst serving imprisonment, that fact alone does not give rise to a right to have his sentence reviewed.
8. Persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment are accorded an opportunity to learn various trades and courses. The process empowers them, whilst keeping them busy, as they reflect on their past actions.
9. But just because a person had gained some qualifications, does not entitle him to have his sentence reviewed downwards.
10. In this case, the court already gave due consideration to all the factors which each of the Applicants had placed before me. Having undertaken the requisite evaluation of the Applicants’ respective circumstances, the court re-sentenced each of them to 30 years imprisonment.
11. There is no basis in law or in fact, to warrant a further review of the sentence that was handed down during re-sentencing.
12. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at KISUMU
This19thday of February2020
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE