Automated Summary
Key Facts
Vincent Kipngetich Bett faces trial for the alleged murder of Samwel Kibet Too. The accused pleaded not guilty and the trial began on 8 November 2021. A confession statement made by the accused on 2018-10-21 at Fort Tenan Police Station was challenged for admissibility. The court conducted a trial within a trial, with evidence showing the accused confessed voluntarily in Kiswahili with a third party present, despite his claim of being beaten and lacking legal counsel. The judge ruled the confession admissible in the murder trial.
Issues
The court addressed the admissibility of a confession made by Vincent Kipngetich Bett under the Evidence Act (Cap.80) and the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Key issues included whether the confession was voluntary, if the accused was informed of his right to legal counsel, and compliance with Section 25A of the Evidence Act and the 2009 Rules. The accused claimed he was beaten and forced to confess without an advocate, but the third party (Paul Kiptabut Too) confirmed the confession was voluntary. The court found the confession admissible despite these claims.
Holdings
The court found the Statement recorded by the Accused Person on 2018-10-21 admissible in evidence in his criminal trial. The judge concluded that the confession was recorded in accordance with the rigorous process set out in the Evidence Act and Rules, despite the accused's claims of being forced to confess and lacking legal representation at the time. The third party present during the confession confirmed it was made voluntarily, and the accused failed to register medical concerns or seek legal counsel before recording the statement.
Remedies
The court ruled that the confession statement made by Vincent Kipngetich Bett on 2018-10-21 is admissible as evidence in his criminal trial for the alleged murder of Samwel Kibet Too.
Legal Principles
The court applied Kenya's legal framework for admissibility of confessions, including Section 25A of the Evidence Act requiring confessions to be made in court or under strict procedural safeguards with a third party and proper caution. The Evidence (Out of Court Confessions) Rules 2009 (Rule 4(1)) were also key, mandating protections against coercion, ensuring legal representation rights, and requiring third-party presence. Under Article 49 and 50 of the Constitution, confessions obtained through torture or rights violations are inadmissible. The court found the confession admissible as it met statutory and constitutional requirements despite the accused's claims of coercion.
Cited Statute
- Evidence Act (Cap.80)
- Constitution of Kenya 2010
- Evidence (Out of Court Confessions) Rules, 2009
Judge Name
- A. Ongeri
- J.K. Sergon
Passage Text
- In the end, I find the Statement recorded by the Accused Person dated 21/10/2018 admissible in evidence in his own criminal trial. It is so ordered.
- Having considered the governing law on confessionary statements, it is clear that the recording officer adhered to the rigorous process set out in the law. The accused stated that he was forced to record his statement, however, Paul Kiptabuk Too a third party who was present when the accused recorded his statement, confirmed that the accused confessed out of his own volition. The accused stated that he was beaten, however, he failed to register any medical concerns when recording his statement. The accused stated that he had no legal representation when the statement was recorded, however, he was informed of the right to have legal counsel but proceeded to record the confession without legal representation.