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

Public Prosecutor v Leo [2008] VUSC 62; Criminal Case 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 & 78 of 2007 (5 August 2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 & 78 of 2007

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-V-

SANDY LEO
JAMES WETIES
LOPEZ ADAMS
ANDRE LESINES
MALON HOSPMANDER

Coram: Justice C. N TUOHY

Date of Sentence: 5th August 2008

Counsel: Mr. Molbaleh for Prosecution
Mr. Toa for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants
Mr. Malcolm for 4th and 5th Defendants

SENTENCE

1. The defendants are facing sentence for their individual parts in a series of cheque frauds which were committed using Government cheques between 21st of May and 9th July last year. 7 cheques were involved. In respect of each one, the principal offender, an Indo-Fijian named Salendra Sen Sinha, acquired the cheque, altered the amount on it by massively increasing it and often altered the name of the payee as well and then he gave the cheque to an accomplice, either Weties, Lopez Adams or Leo to bank into his account. The accomplices then quickly withdrew the proceeds of the cheque within a day or very few days. Most but by no means all of the proceeds ended up with Salendra.
   
2. Salendra escaped to Fiji on a yacht when he learned that these frauds were about to be discovered and he has not yet faced trial. He obviously is the principal offender in all of these matters.
   
3. To give an idea of the part each of these five defendants played I will give a brief overview of the story of the offending in chronological order.
   
4. The first cheque was number 2153702 and was the MP allocation of MP Danstan Hilton. It was made out in the sum of VT 500,000 originally and made out to his MP fund and it was delivered to Danstan Hilton on 21st May. On 23rd May, 2 days later, James Weties deposited that cheque into his National Bank account and it was now for a sum of VT 3,905,000 and made out to James Weties. Within a short time by 8th June the whole amount had been withdrawn. Weties said that he gave most of it to Salendra and I accept that is so. In respect to this cheque Weties has been convicted of Uttering a Forged Document under 141 of the Penal Code Act, Obtaining Money by Deception under section 130 B and two charges of Obtaining Money by False Pretences under section 125 (c).
   
5. The second cheque was 2154189. This was a cheque that was originally made out to the defendant Sandy Leo for VT 280,000 which was due to him for work he carried out for the Government as a building contractor. He picked it up on 5th June and he gave it to Salendra who altered it to the sum of VT 980,000 and gave it back to Leo to bank in his, Leo’s National Bank account.
   
6. Weties was with them when the cheque was given to Salendra. Weties made 10 photocopies of the original cheque at a number of photocopying places around town in order to help Salendra in making his alterations to the cheque look as much like the original as possible. The photocopies were made so that Salendra could see what the original looked like while he was making the alterations.
   
7. Sandy Leo banked the forged cheque in his bank account on the very same day that he picked it up and gave it to Salendra on 5th June. On the same day and over the next few days, he withdrew very large amounts from his bank account and withdrew all of the proceeds over a few days and he said that he gave most of them to Salendra and again I do accept that. In respect of that cheque Weties was convicted of an offence, Aiding Forgery and Leo was convicted of Uttering a Forged Document and 2 charges of Obtaining Money by False Pretences.
   
8. The next cheque was 2154358. This was a government cheque for VT 78,500 made out to Sportz Power which is the business of Lopez Adams and it was for goods supplied by that business to a Government Department. It was picked up on 18th June. Lopez Adams gave it to Salendra. Salendra altered the amount of the cheque from VT 78,500 to VT 8,760,000 and gave the cheque back to Lopez to bank in his ANZ account. Lopez banked it and the proceeds of the forged cheque were credited to his account.
   
9. He withdrew and transferred various money to Salendra on the day itself and over the following days, giving Salendra VT 3,803,995. But he, Lopez Adams, kept the rest for himself and has used it all for his own purposes. The amount that he kept and used for himself is VT 4,959,005.
   
10. In relation to this cheque Lopez has been convicted of a count of Uttering a Forged Cheque, that is dealing with it as though it was genuine when he know that it was false and also a charge under section 130 B of the Penal Code Act of obtaining money, a credit to his bank account of VT 8,760,000.
    
11. The fourth cheque was 2154172. That was the MP allocation cheque of the defendant Malon Hospmander. It was originally made for VT 500,000 and the payee was his community, Unua Community, which had an account in its name. Sometimes prior to 27th June, probably that day or the day before. Either Hospmander or Lesines gave the cheque to Salendra in exchange for VT 1m. Lesines acted as the go-between, between Hospmander and Salendra. I am satisfied for purposes of sentencing them that they shared between themselves the VT 500,000 profit that they made by selling the cheque to Salendra.
    
12. Salendra forged the cheque after he received it so that the payee now showed as Sandy Leo. The amount of the cheque was changed to VT 11,805,000. Salendra gave the forged cheque to Sandy Leo for him to bank in his account, which he did. Sandy Leo then drew out the whole amount of the cheque within the space of a few days and gave the great majority of it to Salendra. That is what he says and that is what I accept.
    
13. In connection with this cheque, Hospmander and Lesines were each convicted of 1 count of Aiding Salendra to forge the cheque. Sandy Leo was convicted of 1 count of under section 130 B of Obtaining Credit in his Bank account by Deception and 3 counts of Obtaining Money by False Pretences relating to withdrawals.
    
14. 3rdJuly last year was big day for Salendra as by now his offending was gathering pace. On that day 2 forged cheques were banked. One of them was cheque 2154944. On that day James Weties deposited that cheque into his account at the National Bank. The cheque was originally for VT 20,000 and was made out to a man named Charlie Sau, who traded it to Salendra. Charlie Sau was not charged as the prosecution was satisfied that he did not know what Salendra was going to do or might do with the cheque.
    
15. Salendra forged the named of the payee by changing it to James Weties’s name and altered the amount from VT20,000 to VT 7,500,000. On the same day that he deposited it, James Weties withdrew VT 4,500,000 in cash, next day VT 2,500,000 and 3 small amounts of VT 20,000. When he was arrested there was VT 440,500 still in that account and I am told that it is still there today. It has been frozen there. At that stage James Weties had traveled to Fiji and was staying there with Salendra’s family. I am satisfied that the balance in the account was to be James Weties’s money.
    
16. In respect to that cheque Weties was convicted for only 1 charge for legal reasons and that was Uttering a Forged Document. There was no other conviction because that was the first trial actually and the prosecution had laid a charge of theft of the money which was deposited into the account and that was legally an incorrect charge and led to the charges being amended in relation to the trials yet to come.
    
17. The second cheque deposited on 3rd July was cheque 2154925. This was another cheque made out to Lopez Adams’ business, Sportz Power for VT 7,500 for some paint supplied to the Health Department. It was picked up on 2nd July by one of Lopez Adams’ staff and given to him. The next day 3rd July Salendra gave it to Sandy Leo to bank. The payee was no longer Sportz Power. Now it was Sandy Leo Construction and the amount had been changed from VT 7,500 to VT 9,895,000. How it got from Lopez to Salendra is not established. The Court gave Lopez the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him of the charge he faced of Aiding the Forgery of that cheque by giving it to Salendra.
    
18. Sandy Leo banked the cheque and the same day withdrew VT 3.8 m and made a number of large withdrawals over the next few days, reducing the balance by 10th July to VT 3.8 m which as we heard today remains frozen in the account. Sandy Leo said he gave the sums withdrawn to Salendra.
    
19. In connection with this cheque, Leo has been convicted of Uttering a Forged Document, Obtaining Money by Deception under section 130 B and 3 counts of Obtaining Money by False Pretences under section 125 (c) regarding the withdrawals.
    
20. The final cheque was cheque 2155258. This was the MP allocation cheque of MP Noel Tamata. It was made out for VT 500,000 and payable to the MP Community Development Fund. MP Tamata received it on 6th July, which is a Friday. He gave it to Hospmander. Over the weekend Hospmander sold it to Salendra for VT 1m in cash. He kept either VT 250,000 or VT 500,000 for himself and gave the balance of the money he’d received to Tamata.
    
21. Salendra altered the cheque to no less than VT 26,800,000 and changed the payee to Sandy Leo. Sandy Leo tried to deposit that cheque also into his National Bank account on Monday 9th July. Finally the Bank got suspicious, enquiries were made and it became evident the cheque had been altered. Sandy Leo was interviewed by the Police on the 10th July and all these 7 forgeries came to light, resulting in a very large job and investigation for the police.
    
22. In connection with this last cheque, Hospmander was convicted on a charge of Aiding the Forgery of the Cheque by giving the cheque to Salendra and Leo was convicted of Attempting to Utter the Forged Cheque and Attempting to Obtain Money by Deception under section 130 B.
    
23. So it will be seen that all the defendants took different parts and all the defendants were involved to different degrees. Some of them, in fact all of them except Lesines, were involved on more than 1 cheque, Sandy Leo many cheques and James Weties, a considerable number. Some general things can be said and should be said:
    

1) is that the Government has suffered substantial losses. The amount in total was about VT 42 m and it seems that perhaps with Orders that I will make today, VT 5 m may have been recovered. This country is not a wealthy country. Those lost monies are not available to provide services to the people of Vanuatu. Ultimately the people of Vanuatu are the victims of this offending.

2) The second thing that has to be said is that all of you went into the witness box and I found in the various trials that all of you lied in order to try to avoid responsibility. You all know that you told lies in the witness box and I know it too. Sadly it seems that none of you are yet prepared to property acknowledge your guilt except perhaps Mr. Lesines.

3) Despite a number of very direct warnings from me, over a period of months while these trials have been taking place, none of you have voluntarily repaid anything to the Government in respect to the amounts which you helped to defraud the Government off.

In the light of those last 2 matters I find that claims of remorse are a little bit hollow and I think the real situation is that you are sorry for the predicament that you are in but you do not particularly recognize the dishonesty of what has happened and the damage that has been caused generally. I also have to say that the non payment of anything despite warnings, leads me to have some cynicism about the claims compensation will be paid.

24. I turn to the question of sentence, and the first issue is compensation. This sentence was introduced into the Penal Code Act in 2006 in a full way and there are very extensive provisions for that compensation in the Penal Code Act. Which I want to read parts of them so that people will understand what the law is:

Section 40 (1) of the Penal Code Act, it says that:

"The Court must consider and may impose a sentence of compensation in monetary terms of otherwise if an offender has through or by means of an offence of which the offender is convicted, caused the person to suffer loss or damage to property".

Here the Government is the person, the offending has caused the Government to suffer loss.
Subsection 5 of Section 40 says:

"When determining the amount or type of compensation to be made the Court must take into account the offender’s sources of income or any offer, agreement, response, measure or action made or taken between the offender and the victim."

While some offers have been made no response or action has been taken by any of the offenders.

Subsection 7 says:

"Where two or more persons are convicted of an offence, the compensation orders made against them should reflect the means of each individual, so that if one co-defendant is less wealthy than the others, a lower compensation order should be imposed by the Court".

Subsection 8 says:

"Generally liability is joint and several. In cases where only one or some of the co-defendants have resources the Court must make a compensation order for the whole sum against that one or those some of the offenders."

Subsection 11 says:

"If a Court does not impose a sentence of compensation in a case where it is lawfully entitled to do so, it must give reasons for not doing that."

And subsection 12 says:

"A sentence of compensation may be imposed in relation to any particular offence on its own or in addition to any other sentence."

One other point that needs to be made that is that compensation is in respect of the loss suffered by the victim. What they have lost is the sum that the Court should be trying to compensate, not the amount that the particular defendant might have got. In other words, if there is VT11 m lost in a cheque but a defendant only got VT1 m himself out of it then it is the VT11 m that the Court has to try to compensate.

Section 43 (1) says:

"If the offender has insufficient means to pay the total value of the loss, damage or harm, the Court may sentence the offender to make compensation for any amount less than the value of the loss damage or harm or payment by instalments in respect of the loss damage or harm."

And section 44 makes it clear that:

"A sentence of compensation can be for lump sum or for instalments."

The Court can also fix a lump sum payment to be paid immediately or at some future specified date.

25. I now look at each defendant in turn: Sandy Leo
    

Sandy Leo has been convicted and is facing sentence on 12 counts of various types, either section 141 Uttering a Forged Document which probably by oversight carries a maximum penalty of only 1 year imprisonment or under section 130 B or 125 (c) of Obtaining Property by Deception and by False Pretences, all of those offences carry a maximum penalty of 12 years imprisonment.

26. They are 12 counts in respect of 3 cheques, in one of them the loss was VT 700,000. In the second the loss was VT 11,305,000 and in the third the loss was VT 9,887,500. That is after deducting the original face value of the cheque. The final counts related to a cheque, the one that was changed to VT 26 odd million and fortunately nothing was lost in respect of that.

27. So over VT 20 m was lost. However, about VT 4.25 m will be recovered as a result of what was left in the bank being frozen and orders which I will make shortly. There is still VT 3.8 m in one of Sandy Leo’s account which I will order to be returned.

28. The VT 15 or VT16 m which was lost to the Government through Sandy Leo offending. He provided a vital service to Salendra. He provided the bank account, he banked the forged cheques and he took the money out and delivered most of it to Salendra but kept some himself. There is a very full pre-sentence report about Sandy Leo which I have read, I want to thank the Probation Service for the work they had done in this case. They have to provide five pre-sentence reports, five complicated compensation reports and also do financial statements under some time pressure in respect of the defendants and they have done a good job.

29. Sandy Leo is married with two children, a small builder on his own account but employing staff. His education did not reach any level. He is an unsophisticated man and as I said in one of the verdicts relating to him and Mr. Toa has reminded me of, I found that he was taken advantage of by Salendra who I think was a much more cunning person.
    
30. Nevertheless, I am quite satisfied that Sandy Leo knew what he was doing. He knew that these cheques had been altered, forged and he knew what he was doing depositing them in his account and taking the money out. He lived a fairly busy social life with Salendra during the relevant period.
    
31. I am satisfied that he received only a relatively small proportion of the VT 20 m or more cheques that he banked but small proportion of VT 20 m is still a reasonable amount. He has obviously damaged his own reputation and brought problems to his family. His previously had no convictions, he is helpful in his church and there is nothing beforehand that goes against him. I accept that imprisonment will cause hardship for his family.
    
32. As far as compensation is concerned I do not count money frozen from the cheque. That is just money not lost. He has savings of about VT 70,000 which he has resisted paying in compensation throughout. I am going to make an order that that VT 70,000 be immediately paid to the Government. I do not see any reason why it should be in his account rather than the Government’s and I am going to take it into account in his sentence.
    
33. It is clear that Sandy Leo is facing the most charges and is the most deeply involved of the defendants. There is no possibility in his case, given the extensive offending and the degree of loss, of any sentence other than immediate imprisonment. I think that is accepted by his counsel. Counsel have cited a case called Mala which dates from about 1996, in which English standards of sentencing at that time for fraud were imposed. Relying on that defence counsel has submitted that the sentence imposed upon Mr. Leo should be 3 to 4 years. The prosecution submitted in respect of all the defendants, that it should be 3 to 5 years and then refined the submission to say 5 years for Mr. Leo.
    
34. The law on sentencing has changed in Vanuatu since that time as a result of the amendments to Penal Code Act as I have already mentioned. Section 37 says that the Court is to have regard to keeping offenders in the community. So if an offender is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment, the Court must in addition to other sentencing options it may impose, have regard to the possibility of keeping offenders in the community so far as that I practicable and consistent with the safety of the community. I think that is also a direction to the Court that sentences should be no longer than consistent with the safety of the community. As I said the extent of the offending is such that imprisonment must be imposed in this case.
    
35. I have considered compensation. The only amount that can be paid by Sandy Leo is that VT 70,000. I consider that, putting aside the question of any compensation, a sentence of 4 years imprisonment in total is the correct sentence for him. I reduce it by 3 months to take into account of the compensation order that I have made. I sentence him to 3 years 9 months imprisonment that will be imposed on all the counts except the charges of Uttering, which carry a maximum of one year only and it will be 1 year imprisonment imposed on these Uttering charges. All those sentences will be concurrent, that is that they run together, so the total sentence is 3 years 9 months imprisonment.
    
36. I turn to Mr. Weties.
    

He has been convicted of 6 counts relating to 3 cheques. In one cheque the loss was VT 3,405,000 and in another cheque the loss was VT 700,000 and the third cheque the loss was VT 7,480,000. So the 6 counts involve losses of nearly VT 11.6 m. Of that I hear today that about VT440,000 has not been spent and is frozen in Mr. Weties account and there will be an order for its return. In fact so that I do not overlook it, I now make an order that the funds in Mr. Weties account which was frozen of approximately VT 440,000 be paid by the National Bank to the credit of the Reserve Bank of Vanuatu. And I make similar order in relation to the VT 3.8 m frozen in Mr. Leo’s ATM account, that it be paid immediately by the National Bank of Vanuatu to the credit of the Government at the Reserve Bank of Vanuatu.

37. Turning back to Mr. Weties, I consider that Mr. Weties received on his own account about a million vatu which is the estimate that he made himself. The rest I consider that he gave to Salendra.
    
38. Mr. Weties you are a person of very good character. A father of 4, you served 11 or 12 years in the Vanautu Mobile Force and you have a very good record there. It is quite a lot of years now since you left, I think in 1992 or 1993. You were involved in missionary work for couple of years in the early 1990’s and you are still an active church member. You are an intelligent and a good human being who also knew what you were doing. You got carried away with the high life and the money and carried away with Salendra. I think also that you were to a degree fooled by him, but nevertheless you knew that these cheques were forged. You have got very good references from many people. I think that you have one of the better attitudes amongst the defendants, along with Mr. Lesines. I think you were shocked by the reaction of the people when you were arrested and brought back from Fiji. I think it is a good attitude that you have said that you want to reimburse the Government before you look at reconciliation.
    
39. However as far as compensation is concerned there is simply no way that you can make any. You have got no income and no real way of repaying the Government any amount at all. You suggested granting the Government a lease of your custom land, but that is unrealistic. This land like all custom land is held for a family or a group and while I consider it a genuine offer I do not consider it is realistic as a way of providing compensation.
    
40. You offered VT 50,000 per month compensation but effectively, it is just a hope with no means of fulfillment because you have got no income and you have not been able to make any compensation at all up till now.
    
41. I consider that the appropriate sentence for you is two years imprisonment. If there was compensation it would be reduced and would be taken into account but there simply is not any that has been made or can be made.
    
42. That sentence will be imposed on all the counts under section 141, 125 (c) or 130 B of the Penal Code Act and there will be a sentence of 1 year on the charge of Uttering and all will be concurrent so that the total sentence is 2 years imprisonment.
    
43. Mr. Hospmander: you have been convicted of 2 counts of Aiding Forgery, both of them involved you selling MP Allocation cheques, one of them your own, to Salendra. The losses involved one of the cheques only and the loss was VT 11,305,000. Luckily the second MP allocation cheque, Tamata’s one, the forgery was not successful, because if it had been there would have been a further loss of VT 26 odd million.
    
44. You received in addition to the face value of the cheque (which I trust was used for proper purposes), in your own pocket from your offending either VT 500,000 or VT 750,000. I was unable to make a finding as to whether the second cheque money had been split or you had it all. It will be VT500,000 or VT 750,000 one or the other because you definitely got VT 250,000 out of each and possibly VT 500,000 out of the second one.
    
45. Although your offending is not as extensive as Mr. Leo’s and Mr. Weties’, it has one very big aggravating factor not present in respect of all the others and that is the breach of trust and the abuse of your position as a Member of Parliament which is involved in this offending. You used your community’s money for your own pocket. And in the process of doing that you helped to cause the people of Vanuatu as a whole to lose over VT 11 m. Because that’s what was lost on that first cheque of your community.
    
46. You have rightly been dropped as a candidate and in my view you should not hold political office again. People expect the Court to hold persons in authority who abuse their position accountable for that. You received a substantial amount of money as severance pay from your position as a Member of Parliament within the last couple of months and I am told that you did not receive any of it. I can not comment on that. All I can say is that if you had been able to make compensation of the VT 1 million profit that had made by selling these two cheques, then that would have made a significant difference to you sentence, but you have not able to do. You have in fact failed to make any compensation.
    
47. You have VT90,000 in a bank account and again I can not see why you should keep that and the Government not have it. I am going to make a compensation order against you for VT 90,000 payable immediately from that bank account and if it were not for that compensation order your sentence of imprisonment would have been 18 months. Because of it, it is reduced to 15 months. You will be sentenced to 15 months imprisonment on each of the 2 charges and that is to run together, so the total is 15 months.
    
48. Lopez Adams: you have been convicted of 2 counts. One is Uttering a Forged Document under section 141 which carries a sentence of 1 year maximum penalty. The other is obtaining the proceeds of a cheque which is an offence under section 130 B carrying a maximum of 12 years imprisonment.
    
49. There is only 1 cheque involved. The loss was over VT 8.5 m. You are the defendant who had made the most money for yourself out of your offending. You kept for yourself over VT 4.8 m. That is you kept it and did not give it to Salendra. The bank statement showed that you used that VT 4.8 odd million for the purposes of your business, which is for your own purposes. I read letters of support from people close to you who say that you received no financial benefit from this offending. That is simply not true. You received VT 4.8 m which went to your benefit, to your bank account and was used for the purposes of making business payments for you.
    
50. In that respect your position is a little worse than the others and the need to compensation is greater, because you had more profit out of it. I said before that all of you told lies in your evidence and yours were if anything more detailed and sophisticated lies than the others. You told quite an elaborate lie which was shown up during the trial. Now even you find it hard to acknowledge that, referring in your letters to the Court as an "incorrect statement" that you made. It was not an incorrect statement, it was an untruthful statement which was perjury and there were more than one of them.
    
51. You have the best education and you are the most talented of the defendants, the one with the most potential for leadership and success of any sort. However you need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk and that requires you to be first honest with yourself and those around you and accept responsibility for what happened.
    
52. I have read the statements that you put to the police and I gather the impression from them that one of the reasons for your actions is that you saw other people in the political world who you thought were benefiting from their dealings with Salendra and there was a clear indication in your statements that of that influenced the way that you acted, the way you saw those people you mentioned in the political world acting. Which is only one more reason why Mr. Hospmander is required to have a high standard.
    
53. There has been a large amount of material filed relating to compensation and your accounts. You are running a business, it is full of stock. It looks to me as though its not operating very profitably. You are involved in various land dealings which are difficult to follow. You were only involved in the one cheque but you did keep the most money.
    
54. If you had paid or did pay VT 5 m in compensation, that would indicate to me that you truly have some remorse and would obviously go a very long way to make good the loss that you have helped to cause and would also take away from you the money which you have had which you had no entitlement to have. If that money had been paid, I would look at a sentence of other than imprisonment for you. I must admit that I find myself somewhat perplexed by the amount of financial material you have put up. The one thing I do know is that you have paid nothing.
    
55. I am going to handle your case in this way, Mr. Adams. I am going to adjourn sentence for you. I am going to make a compensation order now that you make a payment of VT 4.8 m within 2 months from today. If that compensation payment is not made, I indicate to you now that your sentence will be 12 months imprisonment. If that compensation payment is made, then the Court will consider a sentence which does not carry immediate imprisonment, community work of the highest possible amount and a suspended sentence of imprisonment.
    
56. So your case is adjourned on that basis for a period of 2 months. The remand will be to the 1st October. There will be bail and the condition of bail will be that you do not leave Efate. I have noted from one of your references that there is some prospect that you were going to be going overseas. You will not be going overseas until you have been dealt with on this charge.
    
57. Finally Mr. Lesines: You were the least involved than anyone. You have been convicted on one count of Aiding Forgery. You acted as the go-between, between Salendra and Hospmander in respect of Hospmander’s MP cheque and you received VT 250,000 for your part.
    
58. As a result of this, like Mr. Hospmander you lost your job as a 1st Political Advisor which is only right and proper. You are not in the same position of trust that Mr. Hospmander was. This was not your cheque.
    
59. You have in my view demonstrated remorse. You have taken these charges seriously throughout you have turned up at every occasion unlike some, and I gain the general impression that you are genuinely remorseful for what has happened.
    
60. I do not think that it is necessary to send you to prison, in view of the level of offending compared to the others. I also take into account your ill health and I think that if you are sent to prison that would be very difficult for you and even dangerous for you.
    
61. The financial statement was useful in that it made it clear that you do have some land in Sarakata which is not custom land but which is leasehold land and may be able to be sold.
    
62. The sentence that I impose on you is an order of compensation of VT 250,000 to be paid in a lump sum within 3 months. That gives you the opportunity to try to do something with that land. In addition you will be sentenced to 250 hours community work.
    
63. That is the sentence of the Court. As required by law I advise to all defendants that you have 14 days to appeal your sentence if you wish to.
    

Dated at Port Vila, this 5th day of August, 2008

BY THE COURT

C.N. TUOHY
Judge