Laulesi v Regina [2001] SBHC 128; HC-CRAC 152 of 2001 (30 July 2001)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Appeal Case Number 152 of 2001

EDSON LAULESI

-V-

REGINA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)

Hearing: 30th July 2001
Judgment: 30th July 2001

D. Hou for the Appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

PALMER J.: The prisoner had been convicted by the Magistrates Court on two counts of obtaining money by forged instrument contrary to section 345(a) of the Penal Code. He had pleaded guilty to both offences. He was sentenced to prison terms of four months for count (1) and six months for count (2), to be served consecutively. The first offence occurred on 17th July 1998 and involved the sum of $350-00. The second offence was committed a few weeks later on 30th July 1998 for the sum of $400-00. The prisoner was at the time of commission of both offences an employee of the National Bank of Solomon Islands Limited, working as a teller in the International Department. Both offences were committed in respect of the account of one Jasper Haliala. In mitigation he informed the court that the account belonged to his father and that his father had forgiven him of the offences.

The Appellant now comes to Court arguing that his sentence of ten months is excessive. A number of grounds were enumerated but only one ground pursued; that the amounts of money taken were small by comparison and did not warrant the sentences imposed. Specific reference was made by learned Counsel for the Appellant to the case of Regina v. Andrew Tahuni Criminal Case Number 135 of 2000 (“Tahuni’s Case”) in which the Accused was sentenced inter alia to 3 months and six months for similar offences of larceny by a servant involving sums of $750-00 and $1,500-00 respectively. The Accused in that case was also an employee of National Bank of Solomon Islands Limited at the time of commission of the offences. Learned Counsel Hou argues that if the amounts of the money stolen are taken into account, the sentences imposed upon his client would have been much less.

Tahuni’s Case was a particularly serious case involving thousands of dollars by an employee of the same bank and placed in a position of trust. The offences were committed over a period of more than one year. His Lordship Muria CJ sentenced the Accused to various terms of imprisonment but to run concurrently. The Accused had been charged with 13 counts. He pleaded guilty to 8 counts. 5 counts were withdrawn. The sentences imposed ranged from 3 years for stealing the sum of $63,000-00 to 3 months for the theft of $750-00. All the sentences imposed were made to run concurrently. The Accused thus served a total of 3 years.

I have considered carefully whether the terms of imprisonment imposed by the learned Magistrate in this case were excessive in the circumstances or not. Unfortunately, I do not think so. The terms imposed were well within the range of sentence that a Magistrate could impose. The learned Magistrate took into account the seriousness of the offences and in particular the position of trust placed upon the prisoner. That cannot be under stated. The amounts may not have been substantial but it must be noted that the offence was repeated some two weeks later. Who knows if the prisoner had not been caught he might have continued. That was how the Accused in Tahuni’s Case operated. He only stopped after he was caught. By then he had stolen a substantial sum of money. The sentences of 4 and 6 months imposed were not excessive. They could perhaps be reduced by a couple of months each but I see no reason to interfere. I would concede however, that perhaps the delay in bringing this case to Court had not been given as much consideration as I would have thought. This was a fairly straightforward case. The prisoner admitted the offence when confronted by his Supervisor and was terminated by the Bank. He also was prepared it seems at the outset to enter a guilty plea. No explanation has been given for the delay of this case. In my respectful view, that should be reflected to some extent in the length of sentence imposed. That can be achieved by having the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. Accordingly I would set aside the order requiring the sentences to be served consecutively and replace with an order that they be served concurrently.

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

1. Dismiss appeal.
   
2. Set aside order to have the sentences served consecutively and replace with an order that the sentences be served concurrently. Prisoner therefore will only serve 6 months in prison.
   

THE COURT.