Regina v Fouoto [1999] SBHC 77; HC-CRC 251 of 1999 (12 August 1999)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CRIMINAL REVIEW CASE NO: 251 OF 1999

REGINA OHN FOUOTO
REGINA GINA -v- STANLEY RAMO JIMMY
REGINA -v- GEORGE ULUI

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER J.)

>

CRIMINAL REVIEW CASE NO: 251 OF 1999

DATE OF REVIEW: 12TH AUGUST 1999

PALMER J.: The three accuseds, John Fouoto, Stanley Ramo Jimmy and George Ului, in these review cases had been each charged with separate offences of unauthorised sales of liquor contrary to what is now section 57(1) of the Liquor Act (Cap. 144). The three accused were caught in Police Operations mounted over a three day period (13th - 15th November 1998), in an attempt to curb the increased unauthorised sale of liquor around town. Search warrants were executed simultaneously by Police and large quantities of beer confiscated. In accused George Ului's case, two crates of SB beer were located hidden on top of the roof of his house.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> Each of the accused pleaded guilty, were convicted and fined as follows:

(1) &nsp; & John Foufined ined $100-0000-00, $20-00 of which was ordered to be paid to defray Prosecution's expenses;

: 0">

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-indent: -34.9pt; margin-left: 70.9pt; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> (2) eyanlmo Rammy:ifined $100-$100-00, $20-00 of which was ordered to be paid to defray Prosecution's expenses;

classNormayle="inden4.9pt; margin-left: 70.9pt; margin-top: 0; margin-bgin-bottomottom: 0">: 0">

(3) &nbssp; GeorgGeorge Ului: fined $020-00; $20-00 of which was ordered to be paid to defray Prosecution's expenses.

In each case, all the alcohol confiscated were forfeited to the State.

THE LAW:

Section 57(1) of the Liquor Act reads as follows:

"Any person who sells liquor without holding a lice licence authorising the sale thereof shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable-

(a) &nbs &nbbsp; for a first offencefence to a fine of two hundred dollars, and

(b) &nbs &nbbsp; for a second or subr subsequent offence to a fine of four hundred dollars or to imprisonment for one year or to both such fine and such imprisonment,n>

."

The maxfine one can impose is two hundred dollars. Having perused used the files in each case I am satisfied no error in law or fact exists which would require me to intervene in the sentences imposed in each case.

Having said that, I make the following observations:

(1) The mThe maximum fine of uwo hundred dollars in my respectful view is now too low. It is obvious offenders are fully aware of the risks but are in it for the quicky andits tan be obtained.

(2) &nsp; ces of this nature. accordccordingly have not declined but increased with associated problems.

The Police have worked hard to arrest the culprits and bring them to the courts. Illegal sales of liquor, in particular beer however have continued unabated. In view of these matters, it is my respectful view, Magistrates across the country must seriously consider imposing the maximum fine of $200-00 unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so. This will soon be the subject of a practice direction from the Honourable Chief Justice and must be heeded by all Magistrates.

THE COURT