[2024] KEHC 10910 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had served only a minimal portion of his sentence and had not yet sufficiently benefited from prison rehabilitation programs. Additionally, the applicant's social support system could not be verified, making supervision under a non-custodial order impractical. The court concluded...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 10910 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Musyoki Sammy; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kibera
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 242 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Non Custodial Sentence Under Decongestion Exercise
- Outcome
- Application for non-custodial sentence declined; applicant to remain in custody.
- Judges
- DR Kavedza
- Legal Topics
- Wildlife Offences, Sentencing, Non Custodial Sentences, Prison Decongestion
- 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
Peter Musyoki Sammy
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Non Custodial Sentence Under Decongestion Exercise
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant qualifies for a non-custodial sentence under the Chief Justice's decongestion memo.
- 2 Whether the applicant has sufficiently benefited from rehabilitation programs to warrant early release.
- 3 Whether the applicant's social support system is adequate for supervision under a non-custodial order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had served only a minimal portion of his sentence and had not yet sufficiently benefited from prison rehabilitation programs. Additionally, the applicant's social support system could not be verified, making supervision under a non-custodial order impractical. The court concluded that these factors rendered the applicant ineligible for release under the decongestion exercise, and thus declined to grant a non-custodial sentence.
Court Disposition
Application for non-custodial sentence declined; applicant to remain in custody.
Orders
- The applicant is not eligible for a non-custodial sentence and is not released under the decongestion exercise.
- The file shall be returned to the Lower Court for safe custody.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Sammy v Republic (Criminal Revision 242 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 10910 (KLR) (17 September 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 10910 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kibera
Criminal Revision 242 of 2024
DR Kavedza, J
September 17, 2024
Between
Peter Musyoki Sammy
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. This file was brought before me for the decongestion exercise pursuant to the Chief Justice’s memo dated 7/12/2022, which provides that inmates who are serving three (3) years imprisonment or less, or those serving long sentences but have a balance of three (3) years or less may be considered for non-custodial sentences.
2. I have gone through the file and noted that applicant was convicted by the trial court for the offence of being in possession of endangered wildlife trophy contrary to section 92(4) of the Wildlife Conservation Management Act CAP 376 Laws of Kenya. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Kshs. 200,000/= in default to serve one year imprisonment.
3. A Recommendation Letter from prison dated 15/08/2024 indicates that since his admission to the facility, the Applicant has of good behaviour and that he is receptive of rehabilitation programs.
4. A Probation Report was also filed with respect to the Applicant, indicating that the Applicant has served only one month of his sentence, and that he has not extensively benefitted from rehabilitation programs in prison. However, the local administration is not opposed to a non-custodial sentence for the Applicant, citing his old age. They are willing to facilitate his reintegration back into the community. The report suggested that the Applicant’s initial sentence be upheld to ensure that he benefits from rehabilitation programs in prison.
5. I agree with the findings of the report that the applicant has served barely a month of his sentence. He is yet to fully benefit from prison programs and counselling for successful rehabilitation. Besides, since the Applicant’s social support system could not be verified, it is my considered view that this will make supervision of non-custodial orders difficult.
6. I therefore find that the Applicant is not eligible for a non-custodial sentence and decline to release him under the decongestion exercise.
7. The file shall be returned back to the Lower Court for safe custody.Orders accordingly.
RULING DELIVERED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024. D. KAVEDZAJUDGE