Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Public Prosecutor v Thomas [1999] VUSC 13; CRC 004 1998 (22 March 1999)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR No. 4 of 1998

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-v-

PETER THOMAS

Public Prosecutor ftor for the State
Public Solicitor for the Defendant.

SENTENCE

Sentencing is a punishment imposed by the Court after finding a Defendant guilty for a crime committed by the Defendant. Sentencing can be either a retributory, prevention of committing similar crimes or others, rehabilitation or deterrence.

As the matter went for trial, the Court is fully aware of the facts of the case, and by those facts it will impose what is an appropriate penalty on the Defendant.

The offence under Section 106(1)(a) carries a maximum penalty of 20 years. The period of twenty years shows that the crime is a very serious one. Further, the nature of the crime committed by the Defendant is one of greatest violence against a person and in this case against Denis Garry Runikera and caused his death. In causing the death of the deceased, the Defendant at that time attacked the deceased and assaulted him and he fell down to the ground. By falling to the ground did not warrant any further attack by the Defendant, as the deceased never retaliated of the attack by the Defendant. While helplessly lying on the ground, the Defendant further attacked him by kicking him with his safety boots; and safety boots are heavy boots used to protect a foot of a person, and the safety boots used at that time is an offensive weapon used for that purpose. The worse thing of all, stoning the deceased by the Defendant at the back of his head was not called for at all, for the reasons stated above.

The action of the Defendant at that time, shows no respect whatsoever, towards a human life and that is the life of the deceased.

It is obvious that the Defendant when attacked the deceased, was over another Peter who was at that time in the company of the Defendant who was hit by the truck driven by the deceased, and after chasing the deceased and other friends away, he then attacked the deceased as a revenge for the other Peter who was lying on the road.

As stated earlier, the offence is one of greatest violence against a person and the Court is to protect the society of such brutal attack causing death by way of imposing heavy penalty as a form of punishment; and further to prevent others to think a little bit better and wiser when delivering an attack on another person. The offence in Vanuatu, cannot be said that it is not prevalent as the population of Vanuatu is only over 162 000 people. It is proper for the Court to impose a tougher penalty rather than leaving it to await such crimes to increase. Further after listening to both counsels, I have also took other factors in mitigation in consideration, which I will address follow on. However, in doing so, for the crime committed by the Defendant, the normal penalty that I should impose for this crime on the Defendant, is 9 years.

In addition to mitigating factors, there were some customary settlements between respectable people of Vanuatu and Solomon people and community living in Vanuatu, which took place at the Chief Nakamal. The ceremonial settlement was basically taken as a form of peace settlement which they stated that peace within the Solomon people and people of Vanuatu over the death of the deceased, who is a Solomon Islander. At that time, Vera on behalf of the Solomon community in Vila killed a pig of which Steward Ewo and Mr. Patterson Runikera made speeches and they gave two ring shells money to Chief Maria Sua Noel, President of National Council of Chief.

In response the Vanuatu community performed their customs to the Solomon Islander with giving of 4 pigs, two heads kava, three red mats, twelve feather mats, 85 mats, 10 water taro, 2 bundle banana, 85 plain mats, 1 tamtam, 1 roll Solomon Shell money.

Witnessing the ceremony at that time were the Prime Minister Donald Kalpokas, Deputy Prime Minister Late Father Lini, Serge Vohor, Fidel Soksok, Jean Sese, Pastor Fiama Rakau, Ham Bulu. This shows that the community of Vanuatu was concerned of the roughtless attitude of the Defendant and had to maintained peace and harmony relationship of the two country by this custom ceremony.

The court under Section 119 of the CPC is also to take into consideration any customary settlement into determining what is an appropriate penalty. I have stated earlier in some of my sentencing on violence causing death that compensation in compensating the life of a dead person is totally useless to the dead person, because it cannot compensate him by putting him back to life, and that is why I say that compensation is useless, when death occurs. However the Court does take into consideration compensation but of less significant.

After consideration of every thing in this matter I consider that the appropriate penalty to impose by the Court on the Defendant is to sentence him of 7 years and 6 months. Period in custody of 15 months be deducted from such sentence. And he will now serve a period of 6 years and 3 months as penalty for this offence.

DATED AT PORT VILA this 22^nd Day of MARCH 1999

R. MARUM MBE
JUDGE

Mr. Daniel Willie for the Public Prosecutor
Mr. Hilary Toa for the Public Solicitor