Please Wait. Searching ...
Godwin Emile v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Revision 117 of 2020) [2022] KEHC 12181 (KLR) (8 July 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2022] KEHC 12181 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Criminal Revision 117 of 2020
WM Musyoka, J
July 8, 2022
Between
Godwin Emile
Applicant
and
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Ruling
1.The applicant was convicted in Kakamega CMCCRC No. 741 of 2019. The offence was that of causing grievous harm. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The conviction and sentence were pronounced on April 4, 2020. He did not appeal. He says he was satisfied with the conviction. In his Motion, dated June 30, 2020, he says he does wish to oppose the sentence, but wants the court to review the sentence.
2.Am not quite clear as to exactly what the applicant seeks. He says he is satisfied with the conviction and does not oppose the sentence, but nevertheless seeks review of the same, and specifically asks the court to reduce it to lesser penalty. He then goes on to mitigate.
3.A convict who is unhappy or aggrieved about a sentence imposed by a court appeals against it. Imposition of a sentence by a court is a matter of discretion. The court imposes one sentence rather than another based on various factors and parameters. It could be the substance of the offence. The circumstances of the conviction or omission. The degree of injury suffered by the complainant. Whether the perpetrator was remorseful. Among others. It is from these factors that the trial or sentencing court determines the purpose the sentence to be imposed should serve. Whether it is to deter or to punish or to reconcile or to offer opportunity to the accused to reform or to be rehabilitated. So it is wholly discretionary. Discretion can be exercised in an improper manner or capaciously or arbitrarily. If that is what the applicant is complaining about, he should have filed an appeal against the sentence.
4.The second option that the applicant has is revision under section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 75, Laws of Kenya. I see that he mentions that provision in the Motion. Revision is available where a decision of the court is incorrect or improper or illegal or irregular. The applicant does not claim that the decision was irregular or incorrect or improper or illegal.
5.He has also cited various constitutional provisions, and suggests contravention of fundamental rights and freedoms. But he has not articulated any such violations.
6.Am alive to Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, on avoidance of technicalities of procedure. I shall treat the application before me as one for revision of the decision of the trial court, with respect to sentence.
7.To enable me decide whether or not the decision was proper or correct or legal or regular, I will need to see the original trial record, Consequently, I do hereby direct the Deputy Registrar to call for the said original trial records from the trial court. The matter shall be mentioned on a date that I shall fix at the delivery of this ruling, to confirm whether the Deputy Registrar will have complied, and to give further directions.
RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 8th DAY OF July 2022W M MUSYOKAJUDGEMr. Erick Zalo, Court Assistant.Ms. Kagai, instructed by the Director Public Prosecution, for the RepublicGodwin Emile, the applicant, in person
