Mr T. Romanu for Respondent
GRIEVOUS HARM: Contrary to section 227 of the Penal Code,17.
Particulars of Offence
ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Ratu Waisea Bulaikalou, on the day of June 1996 at Naqelewai village, Wainimala, Naitasiri, in the Central Division, unla unlawfully
and maliciously does grievous harm to Ratu Isireli Naboro.
He originally pleaded not guilty, and the triaceeded on the 15th of November 1996. The Appellant’s son, Ratu Isireli Naboro gave evidencedence,
followed by Dr Nelle Van Beuren, a paediatrician at the CWM Hospital. The evidence was that on the 12th day of June 1996, the Appellant’s
son, who was six years old at the time, came home late from school. The Appellant assaulted him, and threw him inside the house where
he hit the wall. He became unconscious and regained consciousness at Vunidawa Hospital.
Dr Van Beuren said that she examined the child on the 13th of June 1996. He was suffering from convulsions and vomiting. An examinatiowed
a hemiplegia on the rige right side and a right eye which deviated towards the right.
A fundoscopy showed a right rational haemorrhage and a cat scan showed a left cerebella haemorrhage and a right frontamorrhage. She
said that hert her opinion was that the child had been physically abused.
The trial then adjourned due to the absence of witnesses and the accused. He was arrested on Bench Warrant on 25th July but he absconded
again untn until 25th August 2000 when he was arrested by the military. The hearing finally proceeded on 15th November 2000, when
the Appellant changed his plea to one of Guilty.
The record of previous convictions was disputed by the Appellant and he was sentenced on the basis that he was a first offender. He
was sentenced to two years imprisonment. A Social Welfare Report, requested by the court shows that the victim was a child of the
Appellant’s first marriage. It shows that the Appellant paid no maintenance for the child, who was brought up by his grandparents.
The child visited his father for Christmas in 1995, and remained there until the offence was committed. The Appellant was by then
in a de facto relationship with another partner with whom he had three children.
The Social Welfare Report states that the child Isireli, claimed that he did not wish to stay with his father, who was rough “aat
him most of the time.”
The Appellant appeals on the ground that the sentwas harsh and excessive, that he was not given a chance to mitigate, and that he
should havd have been given a suspended sentence. In court, he said he wished to return to his family to support his wife and children.
The State opposes the appeal saying that the sentence was not lenient given the aggravating circumstances of the case.
There is nothing in the court record, and the circumstances of the offender, whiuld justify a reduction of this sentence. The victim,
who wwho was 6 years old, was the Appellant’s son. The victim should have been able to trust the Appellant not to abuse him. The
child received serious head injuries which resulted in hospitalisation. Furthermore, the Social Welfare Report suggests a history
of abuse.
