The appellant was convicted in the Seniorstrate’s
Court on 16th October, 2000. He was charged with intentional
assault under section 107(b) of the Penal Code Act [CAP.135], (the Act). He
was sentenced to a fine of VT40,000.
The Office of the Public Solicitor filed a Notice of
Appeal and a Memorandum ofal on his behalf on 20th October,
2000. Th0. They are not available to present the appeal. The appellant is granted
leave to present his own appeal.
The main grounds of appeal is that the sentence imposed
was manifestly excessive. The particulars are:-
“(a) & t the court failed toed to give weight or
sufficufficient weight to the matters raised in mitigation.
>
(b) ; &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nbp; &nbp;
/s The Court failed toed to enter a plea of Not-Guilty when the Appellant
said that he acted in self-defence.
(c) ;&nbssp; &nsp; &nbs; &nbbp;&nnbp;&
Tpan>The fines imposed were manifestly excessive.”
p clasoBodyText" stylestyle="mar="margin-tgin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
From the records it is clear to me that on 27tp>
September 2000 the appellant was arraigned. He pleaded not-guilty claiming
h his actions was made in self-defence.
The Court below then adjourned the
case for trial on 16th October 2000. After the evidence the Court
found the appellant guilty. I am not prepared to interfere with that
finding.
The appellant’s grounds particularised under (b) therefore fails.
As regards matters submitted in mitigation there is
nothing on record showing that an opportunity was given to the appellant
to
address the Court in mitigation before sentence. He did say in his oral
submissions that he did but submitted that
these were not considered
sufficiently or at all by the Court. He says that he is a family man with
five children, three
of whom are at school. Two of them attend the Santo
East School and one attends Sarakata Primary School. He travels on the
bus
every day. He says he is a first-offender, not an officer known to cause
fights or trouble around town. He says he
is truly remorseful and vows not
to repeat his actions. He says he has reconciled with the victim of the
assault in custom.
The only consideration taken when considering sce
was the fact “that the defendant was a law enforcement officer. He committed
the offence when he was in uniform, and at the place of work……”
In my opinion had the Court below taken considerations of
other factors put in mitigations, the court below would have arrived
at a
lower amount of fine. I accept the appellant’s grounds therefore that the
court below did not do that. I therefore
allow this appeal.
<
I accordingly order that:-
(1) & &nbbp;&nnbs; &nbs;
span>The fines of VT40,0T40,000 be reduced to VT22,000.
(2) p;&nbbsp;&nsp; &nsp; p; &nnsp;&
sp;
Than>The prosecution costs of Vt3,000 be upheld.
-GB">(3) p; &nnsp;&&nsp; &nbp; &nbbp;&n p;
The Appe Appellant be required to pay VT25,000 in three(3) instalments as
follows:-
&nB">
(a) ;&nspp;&nssp; p; &nbp; &nbp;
ndup>nd March, 20001;
lass=odyTetyle=-inde36.0prgin- 108.0pt; margin-top: 1; marginargin-bott-bottom: 1om: 1">
">
(b) &nbbsp;&&nsp;;&nsp; &nsp; &nnbp;&
VT10,000 – 16<– 16th March, 2001;
&nnbsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;&&nbp;; &nsp;
thup>th March, 2001.
>
DATED at Luganville this 26th day of February,
2001.
BY THE COURT
OLIVER A. SAKSAK
p class="MsoBodyText" align="center" style="text-align: cen: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2001/11.html
