[2013] KEHC 1371 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant, having pleaded guilty, shown remorse, served half of the sentence, and being a first offender, deserved a reduction of sentence. The property in question was returned to the State, and the prosecution did not oppose the reduction. The court was satisfied that the appeal on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 1371 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stephen Wanjala Wamalwa; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Appeal 161 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed_in_part
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Plea of Guilty, Destruction of Police Property
- 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
Stephen Wanjala Wamalwa
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant for intentionally destroying police property was excessive or warranted reduction.
- 2 Whether the appellant's remorse and period already served justified a reduction of sentence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant, having pleaded guilty, shown remorse, served half of the sentence, and being a first offender, deserved a reduction of sentence. The property in question was returned to the State, and the prosecution did not oppose the reduction. The court was satisfied that the appeal on sentence had merit and set aside the original sentence, substituting it with a sentence equivalent to the period already served, thereby ordering the appellant's immediate release unless held for other lawful reasons.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed_in_part
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the trial court is set aside.
- The appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already served.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO. 161 OF 2012
[Being an appeal from Original Sirisia criminal case No. 507 of 2012)
STEPHEN WANJALA WAMALWA............................. APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC.................................................................. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The appellant was charged and convicted on his own plea of guilty of the offence of intentionally destroying police property contrary to section 103 (D) of the National Police Service Act No. 11A of 2011. He was sentenced to a fine of Kshs. 20,000/=, in default to serve two (2) years imprisonment.
He filed an appeal against conviction and sentence. However while prosecuting his appeal, he opted to proceed with appeal against sentence only. He told this court that for the preiod he has been in prison,he has learnt and changed in character. He asked to be pardoned to be able to reunite with his family.
The State, represented by Ms. Nyamweya counsel, did not oppose the request on reduction of the sentence. She submitted the appellant had served one year and has learnt his lesson. He may be discharged.
The Appellant was handcuffed while in police custody, destroyed the said handcuff. He was sentenced on 25th September 2012 and has therefore served a period of one year of the sentence. The handcuffs (exhibits) were ordered released back to the O.C.S, Chesikaki police station. From the record, the prosecution informed the court that the Appellant was a first offender.
I have considered the submissions of the Appellant and taken note of his remorse, the response by the State and the nature and circumstances of the offence committed. I have also noted the Appellant has already served half the period of the sentence meted out to him. The property in question was returned to the State. I am satisfied that his appeal on the limb of sentence has merit and allow it. I proceed to set aside the sentence given by the trial lower court and give a sentenced reduced to the period already served by the Appellant. He is forthwith set at liberty unless lawfully held for unrelated offences.
JUDGMENT DATED and DELIVEREDthis 16th day of October 2013.
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE.