IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL CASE No.18 o1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-v-
<
M TABI
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Coram: Chief Justice LUNABEK
Vincent
Ms Carol Singh for the Public
Prosecutor
Mr. Kiel Loughman for the
Defendant
SENTENCE
This is the sentence of the
fendant, Michel Tabi. He pleaded guilty to the offence of misappropriating
an amount ount of
Vatu 542,550 as commission of kava paid towards South Pentecost
Community (S.P.C.) for his private use. This is contrary to
Section 125(b)
of the Penal Code Act [CAP.135].
The maximum penalty imposed by
law for such an offence is 12 years imprisonment.
While I amidering the
sentence of the defendant, I bear in mind that this is a serious offence.ence.
The defendant is
in a position of trust and has used that trusted position
to defraud the South Pentecost Community and its individual members
who
worked very hard to plant and harvest their kava and shipped to Vila from
enjoying the fruit of their hard work.
But for the criminal behaviour of the
defendant, the South Pentecost Community and its membennocannot so enjoy.
It is dang to generalise
the circumstances of the offender and the offence which may vary so wiso widely
from case to
case.
neral, a term of
imprisonment is inevitable, save in very exceptional circumstances oces or where
the amount involved
is small.
In the present case, the amount
is VT542,550 which is not small but it is less than 1.000.000 Vatu.
The tef imprisonment is
ranging from the very short up to about 18 months are appropriate iate in
contested cases. (See
the principles as applied in PP v. Keith Mala,
Criminal Case No.42 of 1995 and considered in PP v. Joseph Kalo, Criminal
Case No.19 of 1998).
The defendant pleaded guilty
and has no previous convictions. This will be discounted in his favour. The
dishonesty occurred
once on 24 April 2000 and on a very short period of
time. The most appropriate sentence in a case such as this is 2 months
imprisonment. I bear in mind that the defendant is unemployed. He has no
financial means. His wife and children are not
in Vanuatu and he tries to
bring them back in the country. Further I bear in mind that after the
offence has been discovered,
the defendant has been assaulted by the
complainant Emile Bule and others. Finally, I take also into account that
Emile
Bule and others had already proceeded with the sale of the furniture
the defendant bought with the money he is accused of misappropriating.
In such circumstances, it is
not appropriate to an order for restitution. I consider the suspended
se sentence but I
do think that it is appropriate.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The defendant, M Tabi is
sentenced to 2 months imprisonment with immediate effect.
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
There is no order as to
prosecution costs.n>
14 days to appeal explained to
the defendant.
DATED at PORT- this 10th
DAY of AUGUST, 2001<
BY THE COURT
LUNABEK Vincent
Chief Justice
