Kopana v Reginam [1996] SBHC 44; HC-CRC 005 of 1996 (11 September 1996)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 5 of 1996

ALPHONSUS KOPANA

-v-

REGINAM

nbsp;

Before: Muria CJ

Hearing: 11 September 1996 - Judgement: 11 September 1996

Counseleutao for Appellant; J. Fag. Faga for Respondent

MURIA, C.J.:

This appellant appeals against the sentence of 2 months imprisonment imposed on him by the learned Principal Magistrate (Malaita) on a charge of consuming liquor in public, namely Auki Market.

Before I deal with the argument raised by Counsel for the appellant, I should mention that consuming liquor in public places may not appear to some as a serious matter. But there can be no doubt that experience have shown that alcohol and violence do exist together at times and often, the latter follows the former. In an attempt to discourage such event, Parliament saw fit to increase the penalty in an offence such as that of consuming liquor in public.

It has to be accepted that a market place, including Auki Market, is a place where men, women children and elder people come to. Many of such people, not only dislike the sight of drunken persons with bottles and cans of beer in their hands, but also do have some sense of fear by the sight of persons affected by alcohol. They fear for themselves as well as their market produce. The law recognises such law recognises such opportunity for social disharmony and so makes it an offence even to consume liquor in public places, even in no violence needs actually to be present.

Turning to the appeal, the facts are not in dispute. The sole ground advanced by Mr. Teutao is that the sentence of 2 months imprisonment is too excessive in the circumstances of this case. The appellant pleaded guilty and he is a first offender. Apart from just consuming liquor in the Market, he caused no violence, although in my view he posed some threat to those around him. To that extent I agree to the learned Principal Magistrate's comment on the question of deterrence. A two months imprisonment in such circumstances would not be considered excessive if such a sentence can be lawfully imposed.

Mr. Teutao, however, goes further that the sentence imposed was not only excessive but one which the learned Principal Magistrate should not have imposed. There is no power under that section to impose an imprisonment sentence, says Counsel. This argument is supported by Mr. Faga who appeared for the crown. Mr. Faga, however, says that, there must still be an element of deterrence in the sentence and as such an appropriate level of fine should reflect that.

Having considered, the provision under which the appellant had been charged, I agreed with the argument by Counsel that the penalty authorised to be imposed under s.68 of the Liquor Act is only that of a fine unless in default of that fine, in which case an imprisonment sentence can be imposed. An element of deterrence must therefore be reflected in the fine to be imposed.

In the circumstances I allow the appeal. The sentence of two months imprisonment is quashed and I shall substitute that sentence with a fine of $100.00 payable by 12 noon tomorrow 12 September 1996, in default, 2 months imprisonment.

Order:

Appeal allowed

Sentence varied to a fine of $100.00

GJB MURIA
CHIEF JUSTICE