[2024] KEHC 6339 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 6339 (KLR)

The High Court found that the trial court erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was arrested on 18 November 2016 and sentenced on 16 August 2017, amounting to approximately nine...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 6339 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Rapheal Gichingu Rose; Respondent: Republic
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kiambu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Criminal Appeal 107 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Application for Review of Sentence Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
A Mshila
Legal Topics
Sentencing Review, Time Spent in Custody, Sexual Offences, Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Sentencing Review Time Spent in Custody Sexual Offences Section 333 2 Criminal Procedure Code

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rapheal Gichingu Rose

Applicant

Republic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Revision / Application for Review of Sentence Under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in failing to consider the date of arrest as the commencement date of the sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the trial court erred by failing to consider the period the applicant spent in remand custody prior to sentencing, as required by section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was arrested on 18 November 2016 and sentenced on 16 August 2017, amounting to approximately nine months in remand. The court held that this period should be discounted from the imposed sentence of twenty years. The application for review was allowed, and the sentence was ordered to commence from the date of arrest, ensuring compliance with the statutory requirement to account for time spent in custody.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The application for review of sentence is allowed.
  • The sentence shall commence from the date of arrest, 18/11/2016.