Padayachi v State [2011] FJHC 65; HAA001.2011 (11 February 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LABASA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. HAA 001 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

POONAM PADAYACHI
Appellant

AND:

STATE
Respondent

Counsel: Mr. A Sen for the Appellant
Mr. M Kaisamy for the State

Date of Hearing: 4 and 8 February 2011
Date of Judgment: 11 February 2011

JUDGMENT

1. This appellant was charged with one count of disorderly conduct in a police station, contrary to section 47 of the Police Act, Cap 85. To this count she entered a plea of guilty on the 9th November 2010 and admitted a set of facts read out to her in Court.

2. The facts disclosed below were that on the 4th July 2008, at about 10p.m. this appellant had come to the charge room of Labasa Police Station drunk accompanied by another. In the room she swore at a senior police officer who warned her of behaviour twice. She continued to swear so she was arrested and locked in a cell. She was released the next day after being interviewed under caution.

3. The appellant was 33 years of age, divorced with a daughter. She was employed as a project officer for AUSAID and based at Labasa Hospital, earning $650.00 a fortnight. She is a graduate of Otago University and usually a school teacher. She told the Court that the Police had her previously lost mobile phone and they were not giving it back to her.

4. The appellant now appeals her sentence on the ground that it was harsh and excessive, having earlier abandoned her appeal against conviction.

5. In his submissions, Counsel for the appellant seeks to rely on the case of Mendonca v A.G 22 FLR 105, a case before civil division of the Fiji Court of Appeal in 1976. That case, while dealing with a civil matter appears in passing to place a very high threshold on the meaning of disorderly in saying that it must seriously offend against those values of orderly conduct recognized by right thinking members of the public.

6. The dicta of the Court of Appeal in Mendonca were obita in a civil action, however in any event, I find that the accused's repeated swearing in a police report room to be seriously offensive. A worker for AUSAID is meant to be helping to advance Fiji, not to wreak havoc by drunken swearing in the report room of one of our largest Police Stations.

7. The appellant appears to lose sight of the fact that in deference to her employment with AUSAID, the Magistrate discharged her without conviction, when imposing the fine. The maximum sentence for the offence is three months' imprisonment and she was very fortunate not to have to serve time as most others convicted of this offence would have. She was treated most leniently.

8. The Magistrate has the discretion to impose whatever fine he wishes within his authority, and it is not for this Court to interfere with that discretion given that she was discharged without conviction. She did not serve a term of imprisonment and she had the means to pay.

9. This appeal against sentence is dismissed.

PAUL K MADIGAN
JUDGE

At Labasa
11 February, 2011