[2024] KEHC 5664 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender, remorseful, and a student who had already missed two school terms, was a suitable candidate for a non-custodial sentence. The probation officer's report recommended probation, and there was no evidence that the applicant posed a continuing threat to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5664 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Machot Tut Yuol; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Lodwar
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Criminal Revision E095 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Ruling
- Outcome
- sentence reviewed; applicant released for period already served
- Judges
- RN Nyakundi
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Review, Threatening to Kill, Non Custodial Sentence, First Offender, Rehabilitation, Probation Recommendation
- 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
Machot Tut Yuol
Applicant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Sentence Review Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the custodial sentence imposed on the applicant, a first offender convicted of threatening to kill, should be reviewed in favour of a non-custodial sentence.
- 2 What factors should guide the court in determining the appropriateness of a custodial versus non-custodial sentence for a first offender.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, being a first offender, remorseful, and a student who had already missed two school terms, was a suitable candidate for a non-custodial sentence. The probation officer's report recommended probation, and there was no evidence that the applicant posed a continuing threat to the community. The objectives of sentencing, including rehabilitation and reintegration, were best served by releasing the applicant for the period already served. The custodial sentence was therefore reviewed and substituted with the period already served, and the applicant was ordered to be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Court Disposition
sentence reviewed; applicant released for period already served
Orders
- The custodial sentence is reviewed to the period already served.
- The applicant shall be set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Yuol v Republic (Criminal Revision E095 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 5664 (KLR) (17 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 5664 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Lodwar
Criminal Revision E095 of 2024
RN Nyakundi, J
May 17, 2024
Between
Machot Tut Yuol
Applicant
and
Republic
Respondent
Ruling
1. The applicant was charged with the offence of threatening to kill contrary to section 223(1) of the Penal Code. The particulars were that on 27th day of September, 2023 at around 2000hrs in Kakuma refugee camp in Turkana West Sub-County within Turkana County, the applicant threatened to kill while armed with a knife and without lawful excuse uttered threatening words to Nyayual Chol Badeng.
2. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence and as a consequence, he was convicted on his own plea of guilty and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment.
3. The applicant has approached this court pursuant to sections 357,362,364& 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code as construed with Article 50(2) (p) & (q) as conjunctively read with Article 50(6)(a)&(b) of the Constitution.
4. The applicant seeks sentence review. On record I have a sentence review report. The report is responsive. The probation officer recommends that the applicant should serve a non-custodial sentence on probation where he will be closely monitored and through counselling go back to school, home visits and empowerment with life skills. The report indicated that the applicant is a first offender, he is remorseful and willing to reconcile with the victim. I have considered the report and the offence in question.
5. In determining whether to impose a custodial or non-custodial sentence, the court is required to take into account the following factors: -a)Gravity of the offence: - sentence of imprisonment should be avoided for misdemeanour.b)Criminal history of the offender. Taking into account the seriousness of the offences, first offenders should be considered for non-custodial sentence.c)Character of the offender: - non-custodial sentence are best suited for offenders who are already remorseful and receptive to rehabilitative measures.d)Protection of the community: - where the offender is likely to pose a threat to the community.e)Offender’s responsibility to third parties: - where there are people depending on the offender.f)Children in conflict with the law: - non- custodial orders should be imposed as a matter of course in cases of children in conflict with law, except in circumstances where, in light of the seriousness of the offence coupled with other factors, the court is satisfied that a custodial order is the most appropriate.
6. The factors aforementioned encourage that first offenders be considered for a non-custodial sentence. From the sentence review report, it is indicated that the applicant is remorseful and he is willing to reconcile with the victim. I also note that he has already missed out for two terms from school, being a form 2 student at Visionary secondary school. Given these circumstances, I am of the considered view that on conviction, a non-custodial sentence would have been suitable.
7. Having gone through the record, and conscious of the objectives of sentencing, I am persuaded that the applicant has learned a lesson for the duration served in custody. The sentence be and is hereby reviewed to the period already served. The applicant shall be set at liberty, unless he is otherwise lawfully held.
SIGNED, DATE AND DELIVERED AT LODWAR THIS 17TH DAY OF MAY 2024. In the Presence ofMr. Jonathan K. Bungei for the StateAppellant…………………………………….R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE