IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
Appellate Jurisdiction

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA002IJ, 98B
Magistrate’s Court Case No: 20 of 1998

BETWEEN:

AISAKE LEILOMA
Appellant

&

THE STATE
Respondent

Appellant in Person
DPP for Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant, Aisake Leiloma, was convicted on his own plea in the Nabouwalu Magistrate’s Court of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 245 of the Penal Code.

The particulars of the offence are that on 24 December 1997 at Naviqiri, Lekutu, Bua appellant assaulted one Vinesh Ram s/o Sukh Ram occasioning him actual bodily harm.

Appellant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

The appeal is against sentence on ground that it is harsh and excessive given the fact that the appellant and complainant had reconciled and are now in good neighbourly relationship.

The circumstances of the offence were these:

On the day in question the complainant was on his way to a settlement called Naviqiri in his motor vehicle at about 8.00p.m. Accused stopped him. The accused asked him to carry the carcass (dead body) in full of a cow which he had on the road side. The complainant refused since it was too heavy for the motor vehicle and besides the sight of a dead cow (killed by the accused) was disturbing.

Once the complainant had refused to carry it, the accused without any further word punched the complainant repeatedly on mouth and head. Also he had injury on the lips which was bleeding. The area on the cheeks was swollen and painful.

The complainant drove away to save his life. He went straight to Nabouwalu Police Station and reported to police. He was examined medically at Nabourwalu Hospital. The accused was located. He admitted the offence and subsequently charged.

The complainant sustained several injuries mainly to the head and face. They were of a temporary nature and did not cause any permanent damage.”

At the hearing of the appeal a letter from complainant was produced and read. The letter confirmed the claim about reconciliation having been effected and prospect is good for continuing amicable relations between them and so far as the future is concerned.

The appellant is a first offender. He is aged 25 years. He had been in prison since 30 March, 1998 a period of about 4 months. Where first offenders are concerned and where other salutary circumstances are present rehabilitative considerations should be given more weight by a sentencing court. The following excerpt from “Sentencing in New Zealand” by G.G. Hall is apposite:

“Rehabilitation assumes particular significance in the case of first offenders and others who have not developed settled criminal habits. Where a sentence has the effect of turning an offender towards a criminal way of life, protection of the community is to that extent impaired; conversely, where the sentence induces or assists an offender to avoid offending in the future, the protection of the community is to that extent enhanced.”

In these circumstances I am satisfied the rehabilitation of appellant is a relevant consideration as is the need to maintain good social relations between neighbours in the rural area concerned.

The appeal is allowed.

The sentence of 12 months imprisonment imposed on appellant is set aside and one that will allow appellant to be released from prison forthwith is substituted.

CHIEF JUSTICE
Suva
15 July, 1998