[2020] KEHC 698 (KLR)
The court found that the trial magistrate had considered all relevant mitigating factors, including the applicant's status as a first offender and his remorse. However, the gravity of the offence, involving repeated sexual abuse of a 13-year-old child who sought refuge in the applicant's home, warranted a deterrent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 698 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stanley Cheruiyot Korir; Respondent: State
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 221 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Reduction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Offences, Sentencing Principles, Sentence Reduction, First Offender, Remorse, Appeal Rights
- 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
Stanley Cheruiyot Korir
Applicant
State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Reduction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a reduction of sentence under section 8(1)(3) of the Sexual Offences Act.
- 2 Whether the trial court erred in principle or overlooked material factors in sentencing the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate had considered all relevant mitigating factors, including the applicant's status as a first offender and his remorse. However, the gravity of the offence, involving repeated sexual abuse of a 13-year-old child who sought refuge in the applicant's home, warranted a deterrent sentence. There was no evidence that the trial court acted on a wrong principle or overlooked material factors. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive in the circumstances. Therefore, there was no basis for the High Court to interfere with the sentence, and the application for reduction was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for reduction of sentence is dismissed.
- The applicant shall continue to serve his sentence as imposed by the trial court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 221 OF 2020
FROM ORIGINAL CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 38 OF 2020 OF KILIGORIS MAGISTRATE’S COURT
STANLEY CHERUIYOT KORIR...........APPLICANT
VERSUS
RESPONDENT.................................................... STATE
RULING
1. STANLEY CHERUIYOT KORIRhereinafter referred to as the applicant was charged contrary to section 8 (1) (3) of the Sexual Offences Act No. 3 of 2006. He was convicted and sentenced to serve 20 years’ imprisonment. In his application received in court on the 6th July 2020 the applicant seeks a reduction of his sentence.
2. In his application he states that he pleaded guilty at trial, that he is first offender and he is remorseful. That he is an orphan having lost his parents at a tender age of 9 years. That he was deceived by the victim that she was 20 years only to realise that she was 17 years.
3. In Wanjema v Republic [1971] EA 493, Court of Appeal stated as follows:
“[The] Appellate court should not interfere with the discretion which a trial court extended as to sentence unless it is evident that it overlooked some material factors, took into account some immaterial factors, acted on wrong principle or the sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case.”
4. The applicant was convicted after a full trial. Whilst sentencing the applicant the trial court observed that the applicant was a first offender and that he was remorseful. That the offence was a serious one and a deterrent sentence was in order.
5. The facts of the cases were that the child would take refuge in the applicant’s house quite often and that the applicant admitted that he used to satisfy his sexual urges using the said child. What a way to treat a child who had taken refuge in his home. The child was 13 years and indeed she has been scarred, the applicant does not deserve a reduction of his sentence. I find no merit in the applicant’s application and it is dismissed. The applicant shall continue to serve his sentence. He has a right of appeal within 14 days.
Dated, signed and delivered at KISII this 15th day of December 2020.
R.E. OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Applicant in person Present
Mr. Otieno Senior State Counsel Office of the DPP
Ms Rael Court Assistant