State v Ledua [1989] FJHC 17; Hac0012t.1989s (8 December 1989)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12 OF 1989

Between:

STATE

v.

LASARUSA LEDUA

MANSLAUGHTER: Contrary to Section 199 & 200 of the Penal Code Cap. 17

Mr. B.I. Singh for the Prosecution
Mr. T. Fa for the Accused

SENTENCE

The accused has pleaded guilty and been convicted for the Manslaughter of his young brother.

The incident occurred on the 23rd of December 1988 during a time of religious celebrations, peace and goodwill. Unfortunately the message and joy of Christmas is increasingly being overshadowed by alcohol and it is unfortunate that this trend has extended itself even to our rural village communities where "home-brew" is a cheap dangerous substitute for distilled alcohol.

The facts outlined by the prosecution suggests that the deceased had attended a homebrew drinking party and began causing trouble at his home. He was both violent, aggressive and was the aggressor all along. He would not listen to his elder brother and was willing to publicly engage in a fist fight with him. I cannot however ignore the fact that the accused used a stone to strike his brother on the chest and head even though I accept that this was after some provocation.

Taking a man's life is a serious matter taking a brother's life is fratricide and is an even heavier burden to carry. No sentence I pass can bring back the deceased nor lessen the sense of loss, and personal torment that the accused must carry for the rest of his life.

I have carefully considered all that his counsel has urged in mitigation in particular the remorse and even guilt that the accused feels and the important step he has taken in adopting the deceased's son. I accept that the accused is a first offender and is a responsible member of his village community.

This incident will doubtlessly mar this Christmas for him and perhaps others to come with the deceased's son as a constant reminder of this unfortunate and tragic incident.

Nevertheless a custodial sentence is called for but having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the fact that the accused has already spent 3 months in custody I do not propose to prevent him from returning to his village community.

The court's punishment is that the accused is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years. The accused is warned that if he re-offends in the next 2 years and is sentenced to prison he may have to serve this 12 months sentence in addition to any other prison sentence that may be passed on him.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

Suva,
8th December, 1989.

HAC0012T.89S