Supreme Court Upholds Defilement Sentence

Supreme Court affirms mandatory minimum sentence for defilement.

The Director of Public Prosecution has won the appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the decision by the Court of Appeal to reduce the jail term of a defilement convict.

The DPP was not satisfied by the decision made by the Court of Appeal against Joshua Gichuki Mwangi who was convicted with defilement charges and sentenced to serve 20 years in jail.

Gichuki was arraigned in the Senior Principal Magistrate court at Karatina and charged with the offence of defilement contrary to section 8(1) as read with section 8(3) of the Sexual Offences Act.

The particulars of the charges were that on March 8, 2011, at Ngorano Location in Mathira West District within the then Central Province the respondent was charged with the offence of committing indecent acts with a minor which is contrary to the law.

On October 17, 2011, the trial court found Gichuki guilty as charged on the main count and sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment.

Gichuki made the first appeal in the High Court where the conviction and the sentence were upheld.

He later filed the second appeal in the Court of Appeal where the sentence was overturned setting aside the 20-year sentence substituting it with a 15-year sentence running from the time the trial court imposed the sentence.

The decision prompted the present appeal by the DPP at the instance of the Republic.

The DPP challenged the decision of the court of appeal citing that the court erred in meting out the minimum mandatory sentences contravenes the accused person’s right to a fair trial.

The imposing of mandatory minimum sentences under the Sexual Offences Act is constitutional and also in compliance with articles 25, 27, 28 and 50 of the constitution where the court of appeal assumed by reducing the sentence of the respondent.

They further indicated that the declaration of the minimum mandatory sentences does not interfere with the independence of the Judiciary under Article 160 of the constitution and the imposition of the sentence does not interfere with the independence of the Judiciary under the Sexual Offences Act which does not undermine the judicial discretion of the trial courts.

They beseech the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the court of appeal.

In determining the matter, the bench of five judges was convinced by the DPP and overturned the decision by the Court of Appeal.

The court declared that “the respondent who has been released from custody must serve the remainder of his sentence.”