|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Solomon Islands |
HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Criminal Case No. 41 of 1996
REGINA
v
JOHN MUSUOTA
High Court of Solomon Islands
Before: Lungole-Awich, J
Criminal Case No. 41 of 1996
Hearing: 28th-31st October 1996
Sentence: 7th March 1997
Counsel: F Mwanesalua for the Prosecution;
A Radclyffe for the Accused
SENTENCE
(LUNGOLE-AWICH, J): The accused is a member of Parliament. He has two previous convictions both dated 20.8.1996 and would appear arise from the same incident. They relate to drinking and must have been minor offences, when one considers the penalties of $20 and $60 imposed for them. Moreover, they are really not related to the present two convictions, on count 4 for Misconduct (acceptance of benefit) and on count 5 for allowing integrity to be called into question. I disregard the previous convictions. I have taken note of the other mitigatory facts presented by counsel and to some extent referred to by the DPP properly.
The transaction for which accused has been convicted is really one, being that while a leader he accepted the use of a hired car from 4.9.1994 to about 10. 11. 1994, some 9 weeks. That transaction is technically two offences; the first is Misconduct in office under section 14 (1) of the Leadership Code (Further Provisions) Act for which he is convicted on count 4. The second is Allowing Integrity to be Called into Question, contrary to sections 94 (1) (c) of the Constitution as read with section 24 (1) of Leadership Code (Further Provisions) Act, for which he has been convicted in count 5. For sentencing purposes I shall treat them as alternatives.
The offences of Misconduct in Office (accepting benefit) or allowing integrity to be called into question sound serious indeed, especially when one notes that the latter is even provided for right in the Constitution itself, yet the punishments that Parliament has authorised the court to impose for the offences are very light. Maximum punishment is $1000 or 1 year imprisonment or both. The maximum is of course preserved for the most disgusting of misconduct in office. In this case the misconduct is the acceptance of improper benefit, the use of a hired car for 9 weeks. It is not unthinkable that there could be acceptance of a million dollars or more or of benefits that large. So the court cannot exhaust the maximum in this case.
Mr. John Musuota is sentenced on count 4 to pay a fine of $900, almost the maximum. In default he will serve 4 (four) months' imprisonment. In my view the offence Mr. Musuota has committed does not call for immediate imprisonment. He is given 30 days to pay the fine.
I have considered that court should pass sentence on each count an accused is convicted on. Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not make it mandatory to pass sentence on all counts on conviction at one trial. The word used there is "may." Count 5 is in reality an alternative; the act of the accused being the same act in count 4. I therefore pass no sentence on it.
I have already stated that the maximum penalties provided for the two offences and indeed for all the offences under the Leadership Code (Further Provisions) Act is too small. The court must of course keep within that punishment. It is for the relevant authorities to think about that.
Accused is advised that he may appeal in 30 days. He may do so against both conviction and sentence.
Dated this 7th day of March 1997
Sam Lungole-Awich
JUDGE
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1997/7.html