Jail term for Italian man who defiled boy, 3, reduced

Court set aside the life sentence and substituted it with 30 years jail term

In Summary
  • The Court said the appeal lacked merit and that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
  • In 2022, Camelini was sentenced to life imprisonment after the court found him guilty of defiling a three-year-old boy.
Italian national Paolo Camelini in court.
Italian national Paolo Camelini in court.
Image: ODPP

A Kisumu High Court has upheld the judgement by the Winam Magistrates Court against an appeal by Italian national Paolo Camelini.

The Court said the appeal lacked merit and that the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In her ruling, however, Lady Justice Roseline Aburili agreed with the lower court that the victim, being a minor, could not testify, hence the need for an intermediary to testify on his behalf.

Aburili also ruled that the evidence cited by the intermediary was that of the victim.

She further ruled that the prosecution, led by SPPC John Okoth, proved the evidence of both defilement and the identity of the appellant as well as the age of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court, however, set aside the life imprisonment that had been issued by the lower court.

It substituted it with 30 years imprisonment, saying the lower court did not consider the fact that the appellant was a first offender.

In 2022, Camelini was sentenced to life imprisonment after the court found him guilty of defiling a three-year-old boy.

The judgement was delivered by senior resident magistrate Chrispine Ouro.

Then, the court heard that the man committed the crime at Manyatta Estate in Kisumu on February 15, 2022.

He, however, appealed on the grounds that the lower court had erred in law by allowing an intermediary to testify on behalf of the victim.

He further argued that the trial court failed to recognise that the oral evidence by the intermediary was not for the victim and that the repeated use of the name 'Paolo' by the victim was insufficient evidence to identify the appellant.

WATCH: The latest videos from the Star