Case ID:185686

Brian Kirwa Bowen v Republic [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Miscellaneous Criminal Application 196 of 2018

Parties:

Brian Kirwa Bowen v Republic

Date Delivered:

17 Nov 2021

Case Class:

Criminal

Court:

High Court at Nakuru

Case Action:

Sentence

Judge(s):

Teresia Mumbua Matheka

Citation:

Brian Kirwa Bowen v Republic [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

For state: Ms. Murunga

Mr. Ndung’u Probation Officer

Court Division:

Criminal

County:

Nakuru

Advocates:

For state: Ms. Murunga

Mr. Ndung’u Probation Officer

History Advocates:

Both Parties Represented

Case Outcome:

Probation ordered

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 NAKURU

MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NUMBER 196 OF 2018

BRIAN KIRWA BOWEN............................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

REPUBLIC ..............................................................................RESPONDENT

SENTENCE ON RE-SENTENCING

1. On 30

th

June 2021 I delivered a Ruling with respect to Brian’s application for re-sentencing.

2. To enable me arrive at an appropriate sentence I had requested for a pre-sentence report. The report that was filed did not contain the Victim Impact Statement. It also made reference to minutes of a family meeting, but the same were not annexed.

3. I have now received the Victim Impact Statement and the minutes of the family meeting.

4. I have carefully considered the report containing the victim impact statement filed on 16

th

July 2021.

5. To contextualize this ruling, the applicant was found guilty of the murder of his brother Joseph Kipkosgei Bowen and sentenced to death on 2

nd

February 2017. The offence was committed on 1

st

April 2012 and he has been in custody since.

6. Having considered the families’ views that they are ready to accept the applicant back home, and to reintegrate him into the community and having considered that the applicant has been in custody from 3

rd

April 2012, I am persuaded that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate in the circumstances. This is strengthened by the commitment on the part of Probation and After Care Services to support the family in dealing with the issues arising out of the offence.

7. Taking into consideration the period the applicant has spent in custody, the reconciliation within the family and community, the applicant is placed on Probation Supervision under the Probation of Offenders Act, for three (3) years.

8. The applicant to abide by the Probation Order.

9. Orders accordingly.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 17TH NOVEMBER 2021

MUMBUA T MATHEKA

JUDGE

IN THE PRESENCE OF:-

EDNA COURT ASSISTANT

APPLICANT: PRESENT

FOR STATE: MS. MURUNGA

MR. NDUNG’U PROBATION OFFICER PRESENT