Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption v Singh [2010] FJHC 94; HAC004.2010 (19 March 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CRIMINALCASE NO: HAC 004 OF 2010
CRIMINAL CASE NO.: 1653 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

FIJI INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
PROSECUTION

AND:

NIRAJ SINGH
ACCSUED PERSON

Counsel: FICAC - Mr N. Marasinghe
Accused Person - Mr J. Rabuku

Date of Hearing: 12th March, 2010.
Date of Sentence: 19th March, 2010.

SENTENCE

Niraj Sing you were charged for 2 counts on bribery offences.

These are:

Count No. 1 – That you being employed in the public service as an Assistant Court Officer attached to the Small Claims Tribunal at Suva, without lawful authority solicited $100.00 cash from the complainant to expedite an appeal lodged by her in the Small Claims Tribunal contrary to Section 4 (2)(b) and Section 12(i) of the Bribery Promulgation No. 12/2007.

Count No. 2 - On the same date, time and in the course of same transaction without lawful authority accepted $100.00 in cash contrary to Section 4(2)(b) and Section 12(i) of the Bribery Promulgation No. 12 of 2007.

You pleaded guilty to both counts and after admitting the summary of facts you were convicted on your own plea of guilty.

Summary of facts you admitted are as follows.

On 22/9/2009 Complainant Navnita Devi came to Small Claims Tribunal to lodge an appeal against the ruling and she paid $11.22 as the fee as she was told to pay. Then you who worked there as the cashier that day approached the complainant and offered her help to speed up the appeal, gave her your mobile number and solicited $100 to be given to the person who will approve the appeal process.

On 23rd you telephoned her and asked her to arrange the money which conversation she recorded.

On 25th you again called to which she did not answer and she called you and asked you whether you gave the file to your boss. You said yes and told her that earlier she gives the money faster they will process the appeal.

On 28th September 2009 when complainant called and told you that she was having a hard time and she can give only $50, you asked her to bring the money to your work place at Small Claim Tribunal.

On 29th complainant complained to Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption and the FICAC officers arranged the raid for 29th September, 2009.

On 29th September 2009 as FICAC officers positioned themselves and when you approached the complainant they photographed you and you accepted $50 given to you by the complainant and you asked for another $50 and same was accepted by you and there you were arrested.

The maximum punishment for the offences in both counts is fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for 7 years.

The Prevention of Bribery Promulgation No. 12 of 2007 was promulgated among other things to make further and better provisions for the prevention of bribery in public service. Officers of public service are expected to be of a higher level of integrity than others. The reason is quite simple, namely to preserve confidence in the administration of public affairs (R.V. Nua (2003) 3NZLR.

Court considers bribery as a serious crime which adversely affect the administration of a country. Considering the above, on each count I take as a starting point a term of 2 years imprisonment.

Aggravating factors

The aggravating factors are you being an officer holding public office solicited from the appellant (complainant in this case) the money to get her appeal expedited taking advantage of the situation that she was in a desperate situation to get her matter in the tribunal sorted out. Further you telephoned her asking for the money again. Again when she called you to check whether her file was given to your boss you said ‘yes’ and the earlier she gives you the money the faster they will process the appeal. This is to give her the impression that to get the matter done she has to bribe. Therefore you demean the justice system being an Assistant Court Officer by giving the public the impression that they have to bribe officers to get their official work done.

Considering the above aggravating factors I increase your sentence by 2 years on each count making a total of 4 years imprisonment on each count.

Mitigation

Counsel for defence made submission on mitigation.

They are: that you pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, you feel deep sense of remorse, you are the sole breadwinner of the family of 3 growing children and you faced financial difficulties. Counsel made submissions on your family background and your education and to show that you did not have the ideal upbringing as you had to face hardships due to separation of parents. Further urged the court to consider your work experience in court and never had any disciplinary proceedings against you and to consider your previous good character and your financial difficulties.

Considering your early plea of guilt I reduce 15 months from the sentence on each count and reduce further 21 months for all the mitigating factors mentioned above on each count making a total of 1 year imprisonment on each count. Further I give you a discount of 4 months for your previous good character making a total of 8 months imprisonment on each count.

In terms of Section 12(1) of the Promulgation I further impose a fine on $200 on each count and in default of payment of such fine on each count I sentence further 1 month imprisonment.

Now I consider whether the 8 months imprisonment sentence on each count should be suspended. As I mentioned before bribery is a crime which should not be treated leniently. It affects the whole public service and general public will loose faith and confidence in the justice system. Therefore deterrent and adequate punishment should be imposed and I decline to suspend the sentence.

Final Sentence

Count No. 1 - 8 months imprisonment and $200 fine and in default of payment of fine further 1 month imprisonment.

Count No. 2 - 8 months imprisonment and $200 fine and in default of payment of fine further 1 month imprisonment.

Sentences on Count No. 1 and 2 to run concurrently.
30 days to Appeal.

Priyantha Fernando
Puisne Judge
19/03/2010