[2022] KEHC 16732 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had already served three years of a five-year sentence for defilement and, in the context of prison decongestion, determined that it was appropriate to review the sentence. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to substitute the remainder of the custodial sentence with a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 16732 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Carilus Otieno Were; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E060 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
- Outcome
- sentence revised; custodial sentence substituted with probation
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Revision, Defilement Offence, Sexual Offences Act, 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
Carilus Otieno Were
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Ruling on Application for Sentence Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed on the applicant for the offence of defilement should be revised in light of the period already served and the objective of prison decongestion.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had already served three years of a five-year sentence for defilement and, in the context of prison decongestion, determined that it was appropriate to review the sentence. The court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to substitute the remainder of the custodial sentence with a non-custodial sentence of probation, balancing the objectives of punishment, rehabilitation, and public interest. The absence of an appeal or application for enhancement by the prosecution further supported the appropriateness of sentence revision.
Court Disposition
sentence revised; custodial sentence substituted with probation
Orders
- The sentence imposed on Carilus Otieno Were is reviewed.
- The convict shall be released from prison to serve eighteen (18) months’ probation out of the remainder sentence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
Were v Republic (Criminal Revision E060 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 16732 (KLR) (20 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16732 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Criminal Revision E060 of 2022
RE Aburili, J
December 20, 2022
Between
Carilus Otieno Were
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
(Being an Application for sentence revision in Siaya CM’s Sexual Offence Case No. 14 of 2018 delivered by Hon. T.M. Olando, Senior Resident Magistrate on 13. 9.2019)
Ruling
1. On September 13, 2019, the convict herein Carilus Otieno Were was sentenced to serve five (5) years imprisonment for the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1)(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. He never appealed. The prosecution never sought for enhanced sentence.
2. The convict has served three years imprisonment and is left with 2 years imprisonment. In the spirit of prison decongestion, I hereby order that the sentence imposed is reviewed.
3. The convict Carilus Otieno Were shall be released from prison to serve eighteen (18) months’ probation out of the remainder sentence.
4. File closed.
5. I so order.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA, THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022RE ABURILIJUDGE