[2013] KEHC 4186 (KLR)
The trial court erred by sentencing the youthful offender to one year in a borstal institution, contrary to the mandatory three-year period prescribed by section 6(1) of the Borstal Institutions Act. The High Court, exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4186 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Edwin Mokaya Mayie
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision 3 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Revision of Sentence by High Court
- Outcome
- Sentence revised to comply with statutory minimum; period of rehabilitation increased from one year to three years.
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Revision, Borstal Institution Orders, Youthful Offenders, Statutory Sentencing Limits
- 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
Republic
Applicant
Edwin Mokaya Mayie
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision of Sentence by High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the subordinate court for placement in a borstal institution was lawful under section 6(1) of the Borstal Institutions Act.
- 2 Whether the High Court should revise the period of rehabilitation to comply with statutory requirements.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court erred by sentencing the youthful offender to one year in a borstal institution, contrary to the mandatory three-year period prescribed by section 6(1) of the Borstal Institutions Act. The High Court, exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under sections 362 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is obligated to correct the sentence to comply with statutory requirements. The law does not grant discretion to impose a lesser period; the three-year term is compulsory for all youthful offenders committed to a borstal institution. The revision does not prejudice the accused as the statutory minimum must be observed, and the accused had the opportunity to be heard.
Court Disposition
Sentence revised to comply with statutory minimum; period of rehabilitation increased from one year to three years.
Orders
- The period for which the youthful offender was placed for rehabilitation is revised from one year to three years in a borstal institution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court of Kisii
Criminal Revision 3 of 2013 [if gte mso 9]><![endif]
STATE …………………………………………..…………….. PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
EDWIN MOKAYA MAYIE…………………………………………. ACCUSED
REVISION
1. This matter has been referred to me by the Nyamira Resident Magistrate, S. Okumu, for revision pursuant tosections 362to367of theCriminal Procedure Code, Cap 75 Laws of Kenya. Section 364of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that once proceedings of the subordinate court are before the High Court, the High Court may, on revision, take one of the following options:
a)In the case of a conviction, exercise any of the powers conferred on it as a court of appeal by sections 354, 357 and 358 and may enhance the sentence;
b)In the case of any other order, than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order.
2. Subsection 2 of section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits this court from making any order under this section as would result in prejudice to an accused person, unless the accused has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by an advocate in his own defence.
3. In the instant case, this court is being asked to revise the period for which the youthful offender herein is to remain at the Borstal institution in accordance with the provisions ofsection 6 (1) of the Borstal Institutions Act, Cap 92, Laws of Kenya, which reads:-
“Where the High Court or a subordinate court of the first class or a
juvenile court is satisfied, after considering the matters specified in section 5, that it is expedient for his reformation that a youthful offender should undergo training in a borstal institution, it may, instead of dealing with the offender in any other way, direct that the offender be sent to a borstal institution for a period of three (3) years.”
4. In the instant case, the youthful offender was ordered to be sent to a borstal institution for a period of one (1) year instead of three (3) years as provided by law. The reading ofsection 6 (1)of Cap 92shows that the trial court has no option but to comply with the three (3) year period.
5. In the circumstances, and by the powers conferred upon me bysections 362 (1) (b)thereof I hereby revise the period for which the youthful offender herein was placed for rehabilitation from one (1) year to three (3) years.
6. It is so ordered.
Dated and revised at Kisii this 6th day of March, 2013
RUTH NEKOYE SITATI
JUDGE.
[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif";} </style> <![endif]