AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtDismissed
In re Application by Prisons Authorities for Review of Sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Applicant)
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#Courts generally won't change your sentence just because you were in custody before the trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The applicant, through an application forwarded by the Prisons Authorities on 2 April 2019, sought review of his sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, asking the court to take into account the period spent in custody before sentence. The applicant had been charged with murder contrary to section 203 as read with section 204 of the Penal Code, pleaded not guilty, and after a full trial was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. He did not appeal against the sentence. In mitigation on 11 February 2018, his advocate Mr. Onono told the court that the applicant had been in custody for five years and urged the court to consider that period. C. Kariuki J held that the sentencing judge was therefore alive to the five years spent in custody when imposing the eight-year sentence, so there was nothing to correct. The court further held that only the Court of Appeal can change a sentence awarded by a High Court judge, and that a court cannot apply section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to overturn a decision of a judge of equal jurisdiction. The application was found to have no merit and was dismissed. Judgment was dated, delivered and signed at Garissa on 5 February 2020. No costs order was recorded.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked to review a sentence already imposed by a High Court judge
Holding
It cannot; the sentencing judge already took the pre-sentence custody into account and only the Court of Appeal may alter the sentence.
Reasoning
The applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment. In mitigation his advocate stated he had been in custody for 5 years and asked the court to consider it. The court therefore had that period in mind when sentencing. The applicant did not appeal, and the review jurisdiction cannot be used to overturn a decision of a judge of equal jurisdiction.
p. 2
Legal principles established
#- A court of equal jurisdiction cannot use section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to overturn or vary a sentence imposed by a High Court judge; only the Court of Appeal can do so.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review of sentence under section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is dismissed.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (sentence review jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "In re Application by Prisons Authorities for Review of Sentence under Section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Applicant)", Case Analysis (2020). . Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.