Fiji Law Reports

The MThe Maates' Court imposed a number of fines for separate offences upon a single offender but purp purported to make the fines "concurrent".ppeal the High Court HELD: the concept of concurrence has nhas no application to the payment of fines.

No case was cited #160;
Appeal against sentences imposed in the Magistrates' Court.

I. W. Blakeley<160;f160;for the Appelbr>Respondent in Person

Scott J
On 13 December 1993 the Rthe Respondent pleaded guilty to 13 counts of fg to furnish a tax return contrary to section 71 (c) of thef the Value Added Tax Decree 1991.

On 1ruary 1994 the Chie Chief Mrate sentenced the Respondepondent by imposing fines on him in respect of the 13 offences ranging between $150 and $300. Each fine ca a separate 6 months imprisonment default period but the sehe sentences were specified to be concurrent. In other words the total amount payable by the Respondent was $300. Three days later the Commissioner appealed against the sentence.

With lamen inefficiencyiency the record of appeal (which apart from 13 pages of photocopying only required the transcription of 2 or 3 pag written notes - say, in all, 3 hours work) took almost 3 years to reach the High Court. Tht. This type of delay in the preparation of appeal records by the Suva Magistrates' Court is totally inexcusable and unacceptable, as has been pointed out many times before.

In view of the Mr. Bla. Blakeley did not proceed with grounds of appeal 2 and 3 which involved quantum and mode of calculation. The only remaining question is whether fines imposed for separate offences can be made "concurrent".

Makeley filed a helpfullpful and well-researched written submission for which I am grateful.

So far as is relevant ts appeal the sentencing powers of a Resident Magistrate are contained in sections 7, 11 and1 and 12 of theCriminal Procedure Code (Cap 21)sections 28 and 3and 3and 35 of the Penal Code (Cap 17).
s is clear from sections 12ns 12 and 28 a person senteat the time to separatparate sentences of imprisonment for discrete offences must serve those sese sentences consecutively unless the Courers to be served concuconcurrentrrently. There is however no section in either Code specifically allowing or disallowing fines to be "served" concurrently. The closest seems to be section 28 (4) of the Penal Code which provides thaentence once of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine must be served consecutively tormer sentence. This means that, default periods associatediated with individual fines must be served individually.

Mr. Blakeold me that heat he had been unable to locate any authority on the point. He also told me that the practice of imposing concurrenes (which had in any event been confined to this particular Magistrate) has now ceased.
In my view the absence of authority on the question stems from the fact that upon reflection it must be seen that the notion of "serving" fines concurrentkes no sense since concurrence or running together can only apply to a sentence being serveserved, not a fine being paid.

Ifbr>If propcalculated ated the total fine imposed on the Respondent by the Chief Magistrate was $3,000 but the default period was, in view of section 28(4) an obviously exve 6 1/2 years, far longer then the maximum of 9 months alls allowed by section 35(2) of the Penal Code. As however already noted the Appellant is content to let the final sum rest at $300 whichthe highest single fine imposed and which has already been been paid.

The appeal is alloThe sThe sentences imposed on 21 January 1994 are set aside. In substitution fines of $24 will be imposed in respect of Counts 1 - 12 and $12 in respect of Coun Payment already having been made a default of payment peri period is not required. In view of the unique circumstances of this case the sentences now imposed cannot amount to any type of sentencing precedent.

(Apallowed; sentencetences varied).