Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Criminal Appeal 165 of 2004 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Catherine Ndindi Peter v Republic |
| Date Delivered: | 16 Dec 2004 |
| Case Class: | Criminal |
| Court: | High Court at Machakos |
| Case Action: | Judgment |
| Judge(s): | Roseline Pauline Vunoro Wendoh |
| Citation: | Catherine Ndindi Peter v Republic [2004] eKLR |
| Court Division: | Criminal |
| Parties Profile: | Individual v Government |
| County: | Machakos |
| Case Summary: | Criminal law - charge of being in possession of chang'aa - Chang'aa Prohibition Act section 3(1) - accused convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment - appeal against sentence - no previous record of the accused availed by the prosecution - lack of aggravating circumstances warranting a custodial sentence - trial magistrate should have considered the option of fining the accused - need to consider alternative sentencing methods in order to decongest prisons. |
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
CRIMINAL APPEAL 165 OF 2004
CATHERINE NDINDI PETER ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT
VERSUS
REPUBLIC :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
J U D G E M E N T
Catherine Ndindi Peter was convicted by Resident Magistrate’s Court Makindu for the offence of being in possession of Chang’aa Contrary to Section 3 (1) of the Chang’aa Prohibition Act Cap 70. She was sentenced to six months imprisonment. The appeal is against the sentence. The counsel for appellant argues that the appellant should have been given an option of a fine. The penalty section in Cap 70 is Section 4 (1) which provides that a person who contravenes Section 3 of the Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding 10,000/= or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both fine and imprisonment.
The prosecutor did not avail previous records in respect of the appellant. She must have therefore been treated as a first offender. Even though the magistrate observed that the offence is prevalent he should have considered an option of fine first. There were no aggravating circumstances to warrant a custodial sentence. The magistrate should be sensitive to use of alternative sentencing methods and help decongest prisons. The appellant has already served one month and about two weeks from the date of sentence which is 2/11/04. In my view, the sentence already served is sufficient and the court sets aside the sentence of six months imprisonment and substitutes it with the sentence so far served. She is hereby set at liberty unless otherwise lawfully held.
Dated at Machakos this 16th day of December 2004
R.V. WENDOH
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...