Farsy v Attorney-General [2006] SBHC 28; HCSI-CC 096 of 2006 (18 July 2006)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case Number 96 of 2006

DIDIER MARIE EDMOND FARSY

V.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer CJ.)

Date of Hearing: 4th May 2006
Date of Judgement: 18th July 2006

Ms. Gabrielle Brown for the Applicant (ex parte)

Palmer CJ.:

The Applicant applies for leave to issue a Writ of Mandamus against the Attorney-General representing the Crown, for the release of the sum of $2,000.00 held by the Magistrates Court as an order for compensation in favour of the victims of the offences of the Applicant.

The Applicant had been convicted by the Magistrates Court on three counts of indecent practices and one count of buggery involving two youths (the victims). He was sentenced to a total of seven years imprisonment. In addition to that sentence, the learned Magistrate had ordered that he pay compensation of $1,000.00 each to the victims.

On appeal to the High Court, all the appeals against conviction were dismissed. The appeals against sentences of 6 months and 1 year for counts 1 and 4 respectively were also dismissed. The appeal against sentence of two years for count 2 was allowed and reduced to 1 year. In respect of count 3 however, it was dismissed and increased from 5 years to 6 years. This meant the total sentence to be served of 7 years remained unaffected. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

It has sought to be argued before me that the effect of the orders of the High Court amounted to a re-sentencing exercise and in overturning the compensation orders of the learned Magistrate. Unfortunately that cannot be correct. The appeals only raised issues against conviction and sentence. Apart from count 2, in which sentence was reduced from two years to one year, all appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed. Respectfully, this could hardly be construed as amounting to a re-sentencing exercise. To the contrary, the orders of the High Court clearly reaffirmed the lower courts decision. It therefore cannot be seriously contended that the orders of compensation somehow were overturned in the process.

Of greater significance is the fact that the orders of compensation were never raised or challenged at appeal. They were additional orders imposed by the learned Magistrate and therefore required to be addressed separately. I am not satisfied there is good cause for granting leave to issue orders of mandamus in this application and must dismiss application.

Orders of Court:

The application for leave to issue order of mandamus is dismissed.

THE COURT