FICAC v Senibici [2015] FJMC 75; Criminal Case 1752.2013 (3 July 2015)

IN THE MAGISTRATES' COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA

Criminal Case : 1752/2013

FICAC

V

JONE TOGA SENIBICI

Counsel : Mr.S.Shah for the Prosecution
The Accused in person

Date of Sentence : 03rd July 2015

SENTENCE

1. JONE TOGA SENIBICI, you were convicted after a trial for two counts of Accepting an advantage contrary to section 3 of the Prevention of Bribery Promulgation No 12 of 2007.
   
2. During the trial the Prosecution (FICAC) proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 28th June 2013 you accepted a Babu silver and Gold plated watch and cash of $100 from one Yong Pan. At that time, you were placed on secondment to the Department of Immigration and working as a bond officer. You helped Yong Pen with his application and accepted the watch and the money offered by him as a gratitude knowing that you have no permission to accept them.
   
3. The maximum penalty for this offence is fine of $100000 and imprisonment of 01 year and order to pay to the Government in such manner as the court direct the amount or value of the advantage received him or such part court may specify.
   
4. The learned counsel from the FICAC has filed a detailed and comprehensive sentencing submission which I am very grateful to. Even though you were represented by counsel during the trial he failed to appear for mitigation and therefore you made oral mitigation by yourself. I have considered them also for this sentence.
   
5. You were on secondment to the Immigration Department and were getting payment by RFMF. By engaging in these activates you breached the trust placed by the Government who put you in the Immigration expecting to use your expertise as a military officer with experience of 28 years. You also brought disrepute to your mother institution (RFMF) by your behavior. These I consider to be aggravating factors in this case.
   
6. Mitigating factors as submitted by you are married with 02 children, first offender and remorseful for your action.
   
7. After reviewing the facts in this case I select 04 months imprisonment as my starting point for both counts and add 03 months for aggravating factors to reach 07 months imprisonment. For all the mitigating factors I deduct 04 months to reach 03 months imprisonment for both counts. Considering both these offences were committed in the same transaction I decide these two sentences to be concurrent.
   
8. In your mitigation, you were asking for a non-custodial sentence which this court is empowered to impose pursuant to section 26(2) (b) of the Sentencing and Penalties Decree.
   
9. In R v Chan Koon – kwok Arthur (1990) 2HKCA 161 the Hong Kong Court of Appeal stated:
   

"Attempts to inhibit the spread of corruption necessarily involve an element of general deterrence, even in the case of a first offender, so that the gravity of offences in breach of Prevention of Bribery Ordinance may properly be marked "

10. I would concur with the above observation. Bribery related offences by public servants have to be dealt with harshly with custodial sentences to deter future offenders. Even though I am mindful of your past good behavior and the other personal mitigating factors I think the public interest demands a deterrence sentence.
    
11. Accordingly I sentenced you to 03 months imprisonment for two counts of Accepting an Advantage contrary to section 3 of the Prevention of Bribery Promulgation No 12 of 2007.
    
12. 28 days to appeal.
    

H. S. P. Somaratne
Resident Magistrate