Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Regina v Ale; Regina v Maybilyn; Regina v Dalafa [1996] SBHC 106; HCSI-CRC 525 & 623 of 1996 (20 September 1996)

CRC, 525 & 623, 96.HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Review Cases No.525 and 623 of 1996

Subject: Revision of decisions of Magistrates pursuant to section 50 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act.

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J)

Date of Review Judgements: 20 September 1996

1. Criminal Case No. 525/96 – Regina-v-George Ale.

I have read the record of proceedings transmitted in terms of section 50 of the Magistrates’ Court Act and have been satisfied that no error in law or facts occurred or to the extent to cause me to alter the orders of the Magistrate sitting at the Magistrates’ Court, Honiara, dated 4th June, 1996.

However, I note that in the reasons given by the learned Magistrate, he refers to the employment needs of the defendant as a “special reason” for withholding disqualification. With respect, if the term “special reason” is used in the context of section 28(1) of the Traffic Act, then that would not be correct. A clear definition of what a “special reason” is, can be found in the text “Road Traffic Offences” by G.S.Wilkinson, Fourth Edition, 1963, chapter VI. At page 312, the learned Author states:

“A special reason is one special to the facts of the particular case, i.e., special to the facts which constitute the offence. It is a mitigating or extenuating circumstance, not amounting in law to a defence to the charge, yet directly connected with the commission of the offence and one which the court ought properly to take into consideration when imposing punishment.”

What the learned Magistrate intended to say I think was that in the exercise of his discretion, (note the offence of dangerous driving - section 38 of the Traffic Act does not attract a mandatory order for disqualification unless the conditions set out in paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Traffic Act have been fulfilled), in taking into account the driving needs of his employment as a mitigating factor and other factors, he considered it proper not to impose any order for disqualification in the case of the above accused I accept the decision taken by the learned Magistrate was within his discretion, and should not be interfered with. Apart from the above observation and comment, I make no orders.

2. Regina-v-Maybilyn-CRC 623/96/CMC

I have also read the record of proceedings transmitted in terms of section 50 of the Magistrates’ Court Act and satisfied that no error in law or facts occurred or to the extent to cause me to alter the orders of the Magistrate sitting at the Magistrates’ Court, Honiara, dated 1st July 1996. I note nevertheless in the record of proceedings that the learned Magistrate indicated that he had intended to impose a good behaviour bond on the victim as well, but could not because of her absence. I do not think that should be an impediment. What he can do in those circumstances, is to adjourn the case and issue a summons for the victim to attend court on the adjournment date to show cause why she should not be bound over as well. The file is returned accordingly for the learned Magistrates’ action.

3. Regina-v-Jonah Dalafa-CRC (608/96/CMC and Regina-v-Jeffrey Billy Gamaliel CRC
670/96/CMC

Having read the record of proceedings transmitted in terms of section 50 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act and having been satisfied that no error in law or facts occurred or to the extent to cause me to alter the orders of the Magistrates’ sitting at the Magistrates’ Court at Honiara dated 25^th June and 30^th July 1996 respectively. I make no further order.

Albert R Palmer
JUDGE