Mau v Republic of Nauru [2015] NRSC 20; Case 116-118.2015 (12 December 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

[CRIMINAL APPEAL JURISDICTION]

Case No's 116, 117 & 118 of 2015

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against Sentence
in relation Criminal Case No. CF 15/2013 at the
District Court

Between :

RENACK MAU
PISONI BOP
JOHN JEREMIAH
APPELLANTS

And:

THE REPUBLIC OF NAURU
RESPONDENT

Before : Crulci J

Appellant : R. Tagivakatini (for Renack Mau)
V. Clodumar (for Pisoni Bop and John Jeremiah)

Respondent : F. Lacanivalu

Date of Hearing: 12 December 2015
Date of Decision: 12 December 2015 (Ex Tempore) (First revision 14 December 2015)

CRIMINAL APPEAL – Sentence excessive – mitigating factors not given sufficient weight – other sentencing options not considered – Appeals Act sections 14(4) and 17(1) – Sentence quashed and more severe substituted.

1. The Appellants Renack Mau, Pisoni Bop and John Jeremiah appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court in November 2015.
   
2. Before the Court are written submissions filed on behalf of the Appellants, the District Court trial transcripts and the Resident Magistrate's sentencing decisions.
   
3. The three Appellants argue through their counsels that the sentences imposed upon them are too severe in all the circumstances,that the Resident Magistrate didn't use her discretion in relation to reconciliation and compensation and had she done so then sentences alternative to immediate custodial ones would have been open to her.
   
4. Under section 17(1) Appeals Act 1972 the Court took additional evidence from the victim Jonan Johan and his father Mr. Johan regarding the cost of the motorbike, and the submissions by the pleader in relation to reconciliation and apology made by Appellant Bop to the victim and his family.
   
5. The opinion of this Court is that in all the circumstances of this case the sentences imposed by the Resident Magistrate, following consideration of the factors in mitigation and aggravation, were neither harsh nor excessive.
   
6. The facts of the case before the Court raise serious concerns in relation to vigilantism and the consequences for the community at large when members of the public take the law into their own hands.
   
7. This was a deliberate and persistent attack on a teenager by three adult men; it is fortunate for all concerned that the outcomes were not far more serious.
   
8. The Court proceeding by way of section 14(4) Appeals Act 1972, quashes the sentences passed by the District Court and passes in substitution therefor the following sentences:
   
   • (a) Renack Mau for the offence of Dangerous Driving contrary to section 67 of the Motor Traffic Act 2014 you are sentenced to 4 months imprisonment from the 12 November 2015; your driving license is suspended for a period of 6 months from the 12 November 2015; and you are ordered to pay $800 in compensation to Jonan Johan by the 31 July 2016;
     
   • (b) Pisoni Bop for the offence of Common Assault contrary to section 335 of the Criminal Code 1899 you are sentenced to 2 months imprisonment from the 12 November 2015; following your release from prison you are to undertake and complete 80 hours community service within two months; and you are ordered to pay $400 in compensation to Jonan Johan by the 31 July 2016;
     
   • (c) John Jeremiah for the offence of Malicious Injury in General contrary to section 469 of the Criminal Code 1899 you are sentence to 4 months imprisonment from the 16 November 2015 and you are ordered to pay $800 in compensation to Jonan Johan by the 31 July 2016.
     

......................................................
Crulci J

Dated this 14 day of December 2015