[2022] KEHC 2610 (KLR)
The High Court found that the trial court had expressly considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody, as evidenced by the sentencing proceedings and the court's acknowledgment of the applicant's mitigation, probation report, and time in custody. Since the statutory minimum sentence for the offence was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 2610 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Robert King’awi Samuel; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 123 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Remand Custody Credit, Sexual Offences, Criminal Procedure Code Section 333 2
- 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
Robert King’awi Samuel
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Sentence Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the period spent in remand custody deducted from his sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- 2 Whether the trial court considered the period spent in remand custody when passing sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the trial court had expressly considered the period the applicant spent in remand custody, as evidenced by the sentencing proceedings and the court's acknowledgment of the applicant's mitigation, probation report, and time in custody. Since the statutory minimum sentence for the offence was imposed and the remand period was factored in, there was no basis for further review or reduction of the sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was therefore dismissed as incompetent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for sentence review is dismissed wholly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CRIMINALREVISIONCASE123 OF 2019
ROBERT KING’AWI SAMUEL.....APPLICANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC ....................................RESPONDENT
RULING
This matter now comes up for the application of the applicant ROBERT KINGAWI SAMWEL filed herein on 11. 4.2019. The same, brought under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeks that his sentence be reviewed so as to give account to a period of 2 years that he spent in remand custody while awaiting the determination of his case.
The prosecution side opposed this application on grounds that the trial court had considered the said period spent in custody in the sentence.
Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code at the proviso declares that in apportioning the sentence, the court ought to consider the period that the subject has spent in remand custody while awaiting the determination of his case.
I have considered the application and the response of the state/Respondent. I have also considered the record of the proceedings from the lower court. Same confirms that the applicant took plea on a charge of sexual assault contrary to section 5(1)(9 1(2) of the sexual offences Act, No. 3 of 2006 on 19. 7.2016. he was convicted and sentenced on 27. 2.2018.
Prior to being sentenced the court accorded the applicant the opportunity to mitigate. The court also called for, obtained and considered the probation officer’s report. And in the sentence proceedings of 27. 2.2018, the court clearly noted that it had taken into account the mitigation of the applicant, the probation report, the sentence provided for in law and the fact that the applicant had been in custody.
The court further notes that the sentence provided for in law for this offence is, not less than 10 years, but which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life. The applicant was sentenced to a legal sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
The trial court, having taken into account the period the applicant spent in remand custody in the sentence, the application of the applicant lacks my basis and is incompetent. I dismiss the same wholly.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
8. 2.2022.
Court:
Ruling read out on-line in presence of the applicant and Ms. Akunja for the state.
D. O. OGEMBO
JUDGE
8. 2.2022.