Republic v Sokjin [2017] KIHC 1; Criminal Case 85 of 2016 (5 May 2017)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 85 OF 2016

[THE REPUBLIC PROSECUTOR
[
BETWEEN [AND
[
[CHOE SOKJIN ACCUSED

Before: The Hon Mr Justice Vincent Zehurikize

25 October 2016, 2 & 22 March 2017

Ms Pauline Beiatau for the Prosecutor

Mr Banuera Berina for the Accused

RULING

Zehurikize, J: When the case came up for hearing the accused pleaded guilty to the following namely:

(a) Environmental obligations of Masters and Captains contrary to section 21(4) of the Biosecurity Act 2 of 2011 in Count 1;

(b) Biosecurity arrival declaration contrary to section 14(1)(h) of the Biosecurity Act in Count 2;

(c) Biosecurity landing clearance contrary to section 15(6) of the Biosecurity Act in Count 3;

(d) Biosecurity entry inspection of incoming articles contrary to section 23(1) of the Biosecurity Act in Count 4; and

(e) Importing a restricted import contrary to section 107 Schedule 8 item 6 of the Customs Act.

He pleaded not guilty to the offences in Counts 5 and 7 which were withdrawn.

This ruling, therefore, is in respect of sentencing the convict for the offence which he admitted.

After pleading guilty the convict has not come back to Court. There was an understanding between the prosecution and defence whereupon the convict deposited US$10,000 to ensure his return to Court and in failure of which it would be forfeited to the State.

Since the convict never returned to Court the said US$10,000 is hereby ordered to be forfeited to the Republic.

Further it has been brought to my attention by both Counsel that the convict deposited US$150,000 towards payment of fines that may be imposed for the offences to which he pleaded guilty. This was an understanding between the Republic and the defence foreseeing that the convict might not come back which indeed happened.

Consequently both Counsel filed written submissions. In her submissions Ms Pauline Beiatau for the Republic prayed to Court to impose an appropriate amount as fine to reflect the gravity of the offences committed. She did not ask for sentence of imprisonment. She prayed for a total amount between $15,000-$30,000.

On the other hand Mr Berina in his introductory part of the submission he correctly made the proper statements of offence to which his client pleaded guilty and indicated the respective sentences.

In mitigation Counsel stated that his client pleaded guilty at the first opportunity available and that he is a man of good character despite this offence. That he did not know he was committing an offence. He prayed that he should be made to pay a fine.

I have considered submissions by both Counsel and it appears the convict is a first offender who pleaded guilty therefore saving Court’s time and scarce resources. I have also considered the fact that the offences he committed are serious as prohibited soils could have had unforeseen biosecurity repercussions.

Consequently I impose a fine of US$5,000 for each of the offences committed in Counts 1, 2, 3 and 6 and the fine of $2,000 for the offence committed in Count 4. Thus the total amount of the fine imposed is US$22,000.

This amount shall be deducted from the aforesaid deposit of US$150,000 and the balance should be returned to the convict.

Order accordingly.

Dated the 5^th day of May 2017

THE HON MR JUSTICE VINCENT ZEHURIKIZE
Judge