Regina v Honimae [1996] SBHC 50; HC-CRC 042 of 1996 (27 September 1996)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Review Case No. 42 of 1996

ter">REGINA

-v-

ENLEY HONIMAE

p>Before: Palmer,lmer, J

Hearing: 27th September, 1996 - Review Judgment: 27th September, 1996

Counsel: R.B. Talasasa for Prosecution; Enley Honimae in person

PALMER J:

This case was listed for review pursuant to section 50(1) of the Magistrates' Court Act, to give opportunity to the accused and Mr. Talasasa for the Prosecution to be heard before the review is concluded.

The accused had been charged in the Magistrates' Court with the offence of driving a motor vehicle whilst unfit to drive through drinks contrary to section 42(1) of the Traffic Act. This was heard before the Magistrates' Court on 30th July 1996. The accused entered a guilty plea and was convicted. He was then sentenced to pay a fine of $80.00. No order for disqualification however was made by the learned Magistrate, and no reasons given. It appears that the learned Magistrate may have overlooked inadvertently, the mandatory requirements of section 28(1) of the Traffic Act. Accordingly, this review had been directed to hear submissions on the question why the accused should not have been disqualified.

Learned Counsel, Mr. Talasasa for the Prosecution, however has also seized upon the opportunity to submit to the Court that the fine of $80.00 imposed by the Magistrates' Court was inadequate and should also be reviewed. He has also taken up the opportunity to reemphasise the seriousness of the offence and to re-echo his observations and concerns on some of the more horrific and tragic consequences that have resulted from such offences, and the need for the courts to continue to take a tough stand on offenders as a measure of deterrence against future offenders. He also brought to the attention of the Court, the Road Safety Campaign Week launched on Monday this week, (23rd September, 1996) to high-light the fact that a lot of time, money, and effort is being expended not only to warn and educate drivers about road safety but also about the effects of alcohol on a driver and what can happen. He points out that if the courts maintain a tough stand and are seen to be doing so, then whoever, is brought to the court and convicted on such offences must know that he faces a stiff penalty from the court.

I have already stated very clearly in the Review judgment issued on 7th August, 1996, that the courts must continue to be vigilant and to take and maintain a firm hand in respect of such offences. I do not think it could be made any clearer. I note that this case was heard on 30th July 1996, prior to the issue of that Review Judgment, and therefore the learned Magistrate would not have been aware of the concerns and directions expressed therein.

As to the question whether the fine imposed was adequate or not, I am prepared to accept that it was on the lenient side of things, but definitely not inadequate. I am satisfied there were circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence which may have influenced the learned Magistrate. These included the time of commission of the offence; which was at night time (21.20 hours). On one hand it could be viewed negatively, as has sought to be submitted by learned Counsel, that most cases of this nature appear to be committed at night time with dire consequences. On the other hand, each particular case must be taken on its own set of facts, and when that is done in this case, the circumstances surrounding the commission of this case, do not warrant the negative view suggested by learned Counsel. It is material that it occurred at a time when not many vehicles are expected to be on the road.

It is also material that the offence was committed at a side road, and not on the main road. The facts revealed that he was reversing his vehicle across the road at the Kukum Campus when he lost control of it and rolled down the hill. No one else was involved, hurt, or other property damaged, other than may be the vehicle he was driving. Also it was noted in the record of proceedings of the learned Magistrate that the accused did not have any previous convictions. When all the above factors are taken into account, I am satisfied the penalty imposed was within the discretion of the learned Magistrate to impose, though on the lenient side.

On the question whether any special reason had been shown for not disqualifying the accused, I am satisfied, even after hearing the accused (who was unrepresented in Court), that none had been given. The only matters raised by the accused related to the consequences of disqualification; to his job, which would entail a lot of driving, and to his family. These are not "special reasons" within the meaning intended to be applied under section 28(1) of the Traffic Act.

I am satisfied the accused should be disqualified for the minimum statutory period of twelve (12) months with effect from the date of this review judgment. The order for disqualification accordingly will lapse on 27 September, 1997. The accused is warned of the possible consequences of breaching the disqualification order. Driving Licence endorsed.

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

1) Disqualified from driving for twelve (12) months with effect from date of review judgment.

2) Driving Licence endorsed.

ter">ALBERT R. PALMER
JUDGE