Lett v Reginam [1977] FJSC 129; Criminal Appeal No.18 of 1977 (18 April 1977)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
(WESTERN DIVISION)
AT LAUT0KA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1977

BETWEEN

INOSI LETT
Appellant

AND

REGINAM
Respondent

Mr. M.T. Khan for the Appellant
Mr. D. Williams for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrate's Court at Ba to assaulting his wife and causing her actual bodily harm and was sentenced to nine months imprisonment. He appeals against sentence. At the time he appeared in the Magistrate's Court his wife told the Magistrate that she and the appellant were still separated, but she has now sworn an affidavit in which she says that she became reconciled with her husband three days before the Court case and told him she would return to him immediately after the case. The wife was quite severely beaten up; she had four stitches to her earhole and two to the outer ear, she had one stitch to her forehead and left eye. Both eyes were swollen and tender, as was her forehead, and her left hip, and she had a bruised chest. The injuries would leave no permanent injury. The appellant admitted that he was drunk. Normally this is the kind of assault which would be punished by a custodial sentence, even though the accused was a first offender. Appellant's wife has, however, made a powerful plea in his defence in the affidavit which she swore in support of appellant's application for bail pending appeal - indeed it would not be too much to say that it was owing to her efforts that he was given bail. It appears that they were married in April 1974 and have one child born in March 1975. They both live at Vatukoula and have bought a house from the Housing Authority, giving the authority a mortgage back on which they pay $12.75 a month, and she is frightened that if he goes to gaol he will lose his job. He works at Tavua Powerhouse and is 27 years of age.

He spent two weeks in prison and was lucky enough to get his job back on his release. The appellant was unrepresented in the Magistrate's Court but in this Court he was represented by Mr. M.T. Khan. In his decision on the application for bail the learnt Magistrate said that if the additional facts then put before him had been before the Court when the appellant was charged consideration might have been given to a suspended sentence. Mr. M.T. Khan asked the Court to bind the appellant over, but I am not prepared to do that. He also told the Court that this appellant would take out a prohibition order for three years and he has indeed signed such an application. In the circumstances deposed to by this appellant's wife and bearing in mind what his counsel has said, and the learned Magistrate's comments in granting bail I am of the opinion that the custodial sentence in this case is not an appropriate sentence. I direct that the sentence imposed by the learnt Magistrate is suspended for three years.

SGD. (K. A. STUART)
JUDGE

LAUTOKA,
18th April, 1977.