Republic v Moris Kinyua [2022] KEHC 1449 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF  KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO73OF 2019

REPUBLIC...................................................................PROSECUTOR

VERSUS

MORIS KINYUA.................................................................ACCUSED

SENTENCE

1.  A plea agreement dated 9/8/2021 and filed in court on same day came before court for adoption, was adopted, the accused was then charged with the lesser offence of Manslaughter to which he pleaded guilty and a conviction was entered against the accused for that offence.

2.  Pursuant to that plea of guilt having been entered, the court directed that a pre-sentencing and/or a victim impact statement report be filed by the probation officer prior to mitigation and sentencing.

3.  The probation officer filed both pre-sentence and a Victim impact statement reports both date 21/9/2021 on 13/10/2021. The two reports reveal that the accused family and that of the victim as well as the community represented by the administration are not keen to having him back home, in order to initiate the reconciliation and integration processes. All interviewed fear retaliation and violence from the accused who is described at a serial murderer, rapist, defiler, sodomiser and destructive to property. Their view is that justice will only be served if he is given a custodial sentence as a way of deterrence.

4.   I have taken into account the recommendations made in the two reports and the mitigation offered by Mr. Mutuma, on behalf ofmiss Muna for the accused. I have equally taken into consideration the sentiments expressed by Mr. Maina for the prosecution noting that the deceased was brutally stabbed on the chest and urging that no leniency be given to the accused.

5.  Drawing guidance from the objectives of sentencing in Criminal justice system, and being cognizant of the gravity of the offence for which the accused has been convicted, the age of the accused and his past criminal records revealed,  I find that the circumstances of the case and community concers mitigates against a non-custodial sentence.

6.  When narrations given on how the deceased died and the views of the  deceased’s familly as well as the family of the accused, as captured in the probation officers reports are given due regard, it is difficult to wish away the possibility of an inclination to revenge. I take into account the concerns of all interviewed I determine that the accused needs to be kept away much longer and in a correctional environment and be given time to consider acquiring a trade or skill and to secure the safety of the community. In addition, the accused is said to have been taken to propensity to crime and disorderliness for which he needs more time in the environment of a correctional facility to rethink his life and ways including acquisition of the skills that may engage him once he is released into the community.

7.  Having given regard to the above factors, I determine to give the accused a deterrent custodial sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment. The term shall be calculated from the day he was arrested being the 26. 9.2019

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

PATRICK J.O OTIENO

JUDGE

IN PRESENCE OF

MR. MAINA FOR THE PROSECUTION

MISS MUNA FOR THE ACCUSED

ACCUSED – PRESENT

PATRICK J.O OTIENO

JUDGE