[2011] KEHC 710 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 710 (KLR)

The High Court held that compelling the accused to undergo DNA testing after being charged would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination as protected by Article 49(1)(d) of the Constitution. The court reasoned that investigations should be completed before charging a suspect, and it is not the role of the court to assist the prosecution in gathering further evidence against the accused. The order for DNA testing was therefore set aside as unconstitutional, and the trial was directed to proceed without reliance on compelled DNA evidence.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 710 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Robert Julo; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 November 2011
Case Number
Criminal Revision 254 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Order for DNA Testing
Outcome
Order for DNA testing set aside; trial to proceed to conclusion without compelled DNA evidence.
Judges
JV Juma
Legal Topics
Defilement Offence, Self Incrimination, Dna Evidence, Rights of Accused
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Defilement Offence Self Incrimination Dna Evidence Rights of Accused

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Julo

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Order for DNA Testing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court can compel an accused person to undergo DNA testing to assist the prosecution in proving its case.
  2. 2 Whether such compulsion violates the accused's constitutional right against self-incrimination under Article 49(1)(d) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that compelling the accused to undergo DNA testing after being charged would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination as protected by Article 49(1)(d) of the Constitution. The court reasoned that investigations should be completed before charging a suspect, and it is not the role of the court to assist the prosecution in gathering further evidence against the accused. The order for DNA testing was therefore set aside as unconstitutional, and the trial was directed to proceed without reliance on compelled DNA evidence.

Court Disposition

Order for DNA testing set aside; trial to proceed to conclusion without compelled DNA evidence.

Orders

  • The order compelling the accused to undergo DNA testing is set aside.
  • The trial is to proceed to its logical conclusion without reliance on compelled DNA evidence.