Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Tuvalu

Katalake v Crown [2015] TVHC 7; HC Crim App Case 1.14 (21 March 2015)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUVALU
At Funafuti
Criminal Jurisdiction

HC. Crim. App. Case no. 1/14

Between:

Katalake Katalake
Appellant

V

CROWN
Respondent

BEFORE THE JUDGE

Ms. Filiga Taukiei for the Appellant.
Mr. Asterio Takashi for the Respondent.

Reasons for Judgment.

The Appellant, a married man aged about 42 was driving a motor vehicle without a licence. He speeded up to pass two motor cycles travelling with same direction. One of the motor cycles on which the deceased lady was a pillion passenger was in the act of making a right hand turn. In his recklessness he collided with the motor cycle: the pillion passenger sustained such serious injuries that she died.

The Senior Magistrate sentenced him:

For causing death by reckless driving imprisonment for one year.

For driving under the influence of alcohol imprisonment for 3 months.

For driving without a licence imprisonment for 2 months.

The sentences to be served concurrently.

The Appellant has appealed against the severity of the sentences.

Having read the papers and heard counsel I do not feel much sympathy for the Appellant. The maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is 5 years: he was sentenced to one.

A court of appeal is always unwilling to interfere with the discretion of the sentencing count- unless the discretion has obviously miscarried. The discretion has not miscarried here.

In all sentencing there is a bracket, a range of sentences which would be appropriate. If a sentence is within range them it should stand. If on the other hand it is either less than the range or above the range an appellate court should interfere. Lord Denning's test – "Good gracious me! As much/as little as that!" is out of the fashion now but is still the test I prefer. I certainly did not, on seeing the penalty exclaim, "Good gracious me! As much as that!" If anything I might have been more inclined to say "As little as that!"

In considering the appeal I have considered counsel's submissions but I am bound to say I couldn't make much of the suggested family conciliation.

The Appellant was in custody from 17th April 2014 until 9th May 2014, a total of 23 days. These days should be used in calculating the length of sentence yet to be served.

The Appeal is dismissed.

Date 21st day of March 2015.

_____________________
Hon. Robin Millhouse QC
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF TUVALU