[2012] KEHC 3875 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly recorded, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred in the plea-taking process. However, the court held that the sentence of five years' imprisonment was excessive given the quantity of the drug found with the appellant. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3875 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Said Ali Fadhil; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 61 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- sentence varied
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Narcotic Offences, Plea of Guilty
- 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
Said Ali Fadhil
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed for possession of narcotic drugs was excessive.
- 2 Whether the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly recorded.
- 3 Whether the appellant was prejudiced by not being allowed to comment on the probation report.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant's plea of guilty was unequivocal and properly recorded, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred in the plea-taking process. However, the court held that the sentence of five years' imprisonment was excessive given the quantity of the drug found with the appellant. The court also noted that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to comment on the probation report before sentencing. Consequently, the sentence was set aside and substituted with a term of three years' imprisonment from the date of conviction.
Court Disposition
sentence varied
Orders
- The sentence of five years' imprisonment is set aside and substituted with a sentence of three years' imprisonment to run from the date of conviction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
CRIMINAL APPEAL 61 OF 2011
(From original conviction and in criminal case no.760 of 2010 of the Chief Magistrate court at Malindi)
SAID ALI FADHIL.....................................................APPELLANT
VS
REPUBLIC............................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
1. The appellants appeal is primarily against the sentence which he complains is excessive for the offence of Possession of Narcotic drugs contrary to section 3 (2)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act to which he pleaded guilty.
2. He has attempted in his written submissions to place the blame for the drug elsewhere. This Court has looked at the proceedings in the lower court. There is no doubt that the plea taking was properly done and the appellant`s plea of guilty was unequivocal. That is also the gist of his Amended grounds of appeal. However the plea court should endeavour to have the charges read afresh to an accused person where facts of the case of relevant exhibits are not tendered immediately upon the first admission of guilt by the accused. This will ensure that the accused person relates the facts to the charge read to him. In the instant case, the facts were of such a nature that the appellant could not have confused and no miscarriage of justice has resulted.
3. The sentence imposed on the appellant appears to have been influenced to some extent by the Probation report which found him unsuited for probation. Again the appellant ought to have been asked to comment on that report before sentence. Be that as it may, I think that in light of the quantity of the drug found with the appellant, a five year imprisonment sentence was excessive.
4. I do therefore set aside the sentence and substitute therefore a sentence of imprisonment for 3 (Three) years to run from the date of conviction.
Delivered and signed at Malindi this 19th day of June, 2012 in the presence of Mr Naulikha – State, Appellant present,c/c-Evans.
C.W.MEOLI
JUDGE