[2002] KEHC 393 (KLR)
The appellate court held that the trial magistrate properly exercised her discretion in sentencing, having considered both mitigating and aggravating factors. The offence of altering a document with intent to deceive is serious, especially as it could have resulted in an unqualified person being licensed to drive,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 393 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Simon Maina Kamau; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 535 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
- Legal Topics
- Forgery, Sentencing Principles, Document Alteration
- 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
Simon Maina Kamau
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence of 4 years imprisonment for altering a document with intent to deceive was excessive or improper.
- 2 Whether the trial magistrate considered all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court held that the trial magistrate properly exercised her discretion in sentencing, having considered both mitigating and aggravating factors. The offence of altering a document with intent to deceive is serious, especially as it could have resulted in an unqualified person being licensed to drive, posing a risk to public safety. The sentence of 4 years imprisonment was within the statutory maximum of 7 years and was justified by the need for deterrence. No sentencing principle was breached, and there was no basis for appellate interference. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the sentence confirmed.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The sentence of 4 years imprisonment is confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
6 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.535 OF 2000 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.3370 of 2000 of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa –A. W. Ngugi, Ms –R.M.) SIMON MAINA KAMAU…………………………………..APPELLANT V E R S U S REPUBLIC…………………………………………………..RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT OF COURT
The Appellant was originally charged with the offence of altering a document with the intention to deceive, contrary to s.357(b) of the Penal Code. He was unfortunately for him discovered and charged. He was convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. The trial Magistrate appears to have taken into account the mitigating factors recorded in the Appellant’s favour before she sentenced. She however had felt that the offence was of a serious nature which needed a deterrent sentence. If the Appellant was not discovered he would have ended deceiving the licensing officers that he was a qualified driver. Indeed in court the Appellant in arguing his appeal indicated that although he was a driver, he has never been tested by the licensing body and given a licence.
He has never satisfied the examiners and therefore never attained the competency required under the law. This court is not barred also from taking a judicial notice of the many motor accidents taking place along our roads due to the incompetence of the drivers.
It is my view that the trial Magistrate was entitled to regard the offence as of a serious nature. The maximum punishment allowed is 7 years. She gave out 4 years. She took into account all the circumstances. She broke no sentencing principles. I see no reason to interfere with the sentence meted out to the Appellant which I hereby confirm. The appeal is dismissed. Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 7th day of May, 2002. D. A. ONYANCHA J U D G E