The practice of plea bargaining is governed by the 2016 Rules on Plea Bargaining. Rule 4 of the Plea Bargaining Rules 2016 defines plea bargaining 20 as the process between an accused and the prosecutor`s office in which the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for the prosecutor`s consent to drop one or more charges, reduce an indictment to a less serious offense, or recommend a specific sentence, subject to court approval. In R v Goodyear 2005 (WLR), paragraphs 53, 57, 63 and 64; The court ruled that a judge should not give a preliminary indication of the sentence unless the defendant requests it and reserves full discretion to refuse to impose a sentence. In addition, the court added that the defendant must initiate the plea bargaining procedure in order to obtain an indication of the sentence if he wishes to assert his right to a trial. If a defendant has been represented, his lawyer would only obtain a notice signed by his client with the written permission that he wishes to do so. Both countries provide protection for the content of a negotiation/plea agreement, but Kenya does not extend this right to cases of sexual offences, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Therefore, statements by an accused person or his or her representative may be admissible for purposes other than those of Kenya in relation to sexual offences, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. (§ 137N Code of Criminal Procedure, Cap 75). Defence counsel also argued that the presiding judge`s discretion in plea bargaining proceedings was limited to that of ordinary proceedings in which a defendant was guilty.
He argued that the trial judge should not change the sentence agreed to by the parties, but that he or she can reject it under Rule 15(3) of the Plea Bargaining Rules, 2016 if the court finds that a particular case merits a harsher sentence. Defense counsel added that for this reason, the trial judge cannot be charged with failing to consider mitigating factors. He asked the court to uphold the verdict. Our reading of the excerpt above shows that the parties did not consult the court on its recommendations regarding a possible sentence before the agreement was submitted to the court for approval and registration under the law. However, in the above cases, it is always at the discretion of the bailiff to indicate the possible sanction to be imposed on the defendant`s lawyer as part of his participation in the plea negotiation process. The appellant`s learned lawyer, Mr. Mangeni, asked the court, pursuant to paragraph 132(1)(b) of the Indictment Act, to appeal only the judgment rendered. He asked the Court to accept his written submissions in which he stated that the trial judge had not taken into account any mitigating factors in favour of the complainant, namely the age of the complainant. He added that the complainant had pleaded guilty, that he had a lot of remorse throughout the trial, that he was an offender for the first time without a criminal record and that he was 30 years old at the time the crime was committed. He relied on Bikanga Daniel V Uganda, Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2014, where that court held that the age of an accused person is always an essential consideration to be taken into account before imposing a penalty. They include the principles of advocacy negotiation, the types of plea negotiation, the law applicable to the process, an overview of the plea negotiation process, the content of the plea negotiation agreement and its execution, the monitoring and evaluation of the plea negotiation procedure, and the role of the parties involved in the plea negotiation, their rights and support systems.
The oral introduction of a plea bargain is provided for in Part II of Uganda`s 2016 Rules of Justice (Plea Bargaining), which is not provided for in Kenya`s Code of Criminal Procedure, Cap 75. The terms ”plea bargain” and ”plea agreement” are used interchangeably to refer to the same thing. In Uganda, it is called ”plea bargaining,” while Kenya calls it ”advocacy agreement.” In this article, I will define a negotiation/advocacy agreement and discuss its implications and application in Uganda and Kenya. This is an appeal against the decision of Namundi Godfrey, J, in High Court Case No. 163 of 2014 in the Mukono case of 28 October 2014, in which the applicant was convicted of murder under Articles 188 and 189 of the Penal Code and sentenced to 16 years in prison under a negotiating plea agreement. There are procedures when you participate in a plea bargain, and it is not always clear that the court will grant the acceptance. Once the parties have completed the plea negotiation process, this process is reduced to a plea bargaining agreement defined in Rule 4 of the Plea Negotiation Rules, 2016 to designate an agreement between the prosecutor`s office and an accused person on an indictment or punishment against an accused. This means that the plea negotiation process is intended to benefit the accused, the victim and the state. In response, counsel for the respondent asserted that the complainant`s conviction was under the Plea Negotiation Rules, 2016 and that, in this case, the complainant voluntarily pleaded for the accused offence and also agreed to be sentenced to the current prison term. Defense counsel asked the court to review page 14 of the appeal protocol, where the plaintiff placed his right thumbprint under the preliminary agreement and the same was countersigned by his lawyer Allan Nshimye. The defense lawyer added that a vicent Kato, who described himself as the complainant`s cousin, also agreed with the verdict, which was accepted by both the prosecution and the plaintiff. ”The Prosecutor`s Plea Negotiation Guidelines serve to train and build the capacity of all parties involved in the criminal justice system, in particular – prosecutors, bailiffs, defense lawyers, police and prison officials on the objectives and procedures for negotiating human rights-based pleas, are victim/survivor-centred and gender-sensitive – if the court rejects an agreement, it will automatically become null and void, and there is no provision for an appeal or request for review of the order.
In addition, there will be no pleadings in a process that relates to the same facts. However, the court is obliged to inform the parties concerned of the reasons for the rejection of the agreement in the application. A plea bargain is defined as an agreement negotiated in criminal proceedings between an accused person and a prosecutor in which the former pleads ”guilty” to a crime or a number of crimes in exchange for less serious charges, a judicial dismissal of the charges, or some form of benefit to the state. The complainant argued that the erudite judge did not consider mitigating circumstances when sentencing the complainant. In his reply, defence counsel for the respondent argued that the erudite judge did not have to consider mitigating circumstances, since the 16-year sentence was the result of a bargaining agreement under which the trial judge was not to change the judgment agreed to by the parties. ”As the name suggests, plea bargaining should ideally be done at the time of plea so that the state, the defendant and the defence lawyer agree to amend the indictment or indictment if necessary to drop certain charges if they are multiple, to reduce the charge to a related minor offence, to use the accused as state witnesses, or to take responsibility for criminal conduct early enough, etc. before they plead. It is very important that a defendant who wishes to plead guilty, whether in a plea bargain or not, is properly explained their constitutional rights to a fair trial and confirms that their plea is unambiguous, with full knowledge of the consequences. The court is bound by the rules to negotiate a plea at any time before the judgment if one of the parties expresses an interest in the trial before it, unless it seeks to pervert the case of justice.
Finally, the content of a negotiation/plea agreement can only be used for purposes related to the case and nothing else. This means that issues discussed in a plea/deal negotiation cannot be discussed outside of that particular case. In summary, the laws governing advocacy negotiations/agreements in Kenya and Uganda are more or less the same and both are designed to achieve similar results. In R versus Turner [1970] 2 All ER 281 on page. 285; the English Court of Appeal has established a principle that a bailiff should never specify the type of sentence he will impose on a defendant for pleading guilty. Any reference to such would mean that the participation of a bailiff in a plea bargain of any kind would be a blow of all the force and majesty of his office to cause the accused to abandon his trial. The main objective of the guidelines is to streamline the procedures to be followed by prosecutors when negotiating pleas and to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system for an orderly, predictable, uniform, consistent and expeditious resolution of criminal cases. The right to negotiate pleas in Uganda is governed by the Justice (Plea Bargaining) Rules 2016, which are in line with sections 41(1) and 41(2)(e) of the Justice Act, Cap 13. These articles confer on the Rules of Procedure Committee the power to adopt rules governing and prescribing the manner in which the memorial is to be made, the practice and procedure of the Court of First Instance. .
