Regina v Rae [2015] SBMC 11; Criminal Case 343 of 2015 (24 November 2015)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT HONIARA
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 343 of 2015

REGINA

-v-

JOHN RAE

Prosecution: Moses Reani of Police Prosecutions Office
Defence: Allan Tinoni of Public Solicitors Office
Hearing: October 20 – 21, 2015
Judgment: November 16, 2015
Sentence: November 24, 2015

SENTENCE

1. You are convicted after trial for one count of careless driving contrary to section 40 (1) of the Road Transport Act. In your case, you drove a white Toyota hilux G-3400 along Naha 4 road and without due care and attention you ditched that vehicle in a drain close to a residential area of Mr. John Akao. The maximum penalty for a first time offender is fine $5,000 or 6 months imprisonment.[1]
   
2. In my judgment, I found that you consumed alcohol when you drove that vehicle that night and resulted in the accident. This was evidenced by the presence of the solbrew cans of beer found in the vehicle and you were smelt strongly of alcohol as stated by Akao and Suri. That vehicle was a government owned vehicle allocated to the Correctional Service as indicated by letter 'G' on its plate number. You knew very well that it is improper to drive a government vehicle whilst consuming liquor yet you decided to do that. I also noted that after the accident, you escaped from the vehicle and left it unsupervised along the Naha 4 public road. As a result of the accident, there were damages caused to that vehicle. These following parts were damage: radiator, gril, plastic bumper, coolant reservoir tank, front bonnet bend, left and right fender, front cross member link, air cleaner housing, alternator and head light on the right side. The damage clearly was significant and since it was a government vehicle, it clearly requires expending of Solomon Islands government funds to repair those broken parts.
   
3. In your case, I find the following to be the aggravating features:
   
   • (a) You consumed alcohol and still under its influence when you drove the vehicle that resulted in the accident. Being a correctional service officer, you ought to know that it is not proper and safe to drive when you had alcohol. Your mindset and your ability to control the vehicle is not that effective compare to when you are normal. You knew very well of that, yet you ignored it and drove that night resulting in the accident.
     
   • (b) You were given a key to drive that vehicle from your colleague Mr. Chris Bwekulyi. You were entrusted with care to use that vehicle that night. Instead, you use it and ended up in an accident caused mainly by your carelessness. It is clearly a breach of trust required of you to take care of the vehicle in your driving since you are a correctional service officer yourself.
     
   • (c) There were damages caused to the vehicle which rendered it idled for a while as a result of the accident. The fact that it was not working for a while as a result of the accident disrupts and deprives the Correctional Service from its use to provide important government services required of your Office.
     
   • (d) The vehicle you drove and ended up in the accident was a vehicle owned by Solomon Islands Government. Clearly it is an asset that was purchased purposely to provide the service of Solomon Islands Correctional Service. Your act of driving it on that night for a non-work related matter whilst under the influence of liquor is an act of gross misusing of a government vehicle and no doubt contrary to its purpose why it was allocated to the Correctional Service.
     
4. Your lawyer submitted on your behalf the following mitigating and personal features.
   
   • (i) You are a first time offender. Clearly, this shows you are a law abiding person until your conviction before this Court.
     
   • (ii) You are a young married person. Your parents and family depended on you for financial support.
     
   • (iii) You are a person of good character and has good prospect of rehabilitation. I noted in the record of the Court's file that you had faithfully attended to Court even though after your conviction.
     
5. Unfortunately, there is no remorse since you denied this matter until your conviction.
   
6. Careless driving is a serious traffic offence because of the consequence that can flow from an accident. That is why its maximum penalty was increased in 2009. This increase indicated the definite need to discourage careless driving taking into account the number of vehicle users in our country at present. I have observed that this offence is prevalent in Honiara and Guadalcanal taking into account the increase number of vehicles in our town. The endless streams of cases kept flooding this Court might mean the Court is too lenient with its punishment or lack of community awareness for the need to drive carefully or might be because of public ignorance of the ongoing awareness by enforcement authorities and the deterrent messages sent by the Court in past occasions. The failure must fall in one of those avenues.
   
7. In your case I also noted you had misused a government vehicle resulting in the accident. The issue of misusing of government vehicle which ended up in accident is a great concern not only for the public servants because of their tax money but also for the general public at large because it shows lack of care, control and sense of ownership over state owned properties. It is our duty as public servants to look after government vehicles and use it properly for work related matters. This is an obligation expected from public servants in terms of cost cutting measures. The fact that you caused it to involve in an accident put our government in an adverse position having to expend funds for its repair which ought to be reserved for other important services for our people.
   
8. Past sentencing[2] trend for guilty matters for careless driving shows that sentence imposed by this Court range from $100 - $200 when the maximum was $500 and yet to be increased. Obviously not guilty matters must above this range. Now the maximum penalty is $5000 or 6 months imprisonment or both. This is a significant increase of ten times more than the previous penalty especially in terms of fine. A corresponding increase for guilty pleas as gleaned from the past sentences to the new maximum penalty would be $1000 - $2000. In your case, you were convicted after trial, so the penalty must above this range. As a cardinal principle for sentencing, this Court is empowered to utilize the maximum penalty provided for under the legislation taking into account the need to deter this type of offence. In Saru v R[3], Muria ACJ made the following remarks about general deterrence for careless driving offences:
   

"No one can reasonably suggest that a Magistrate who has to deal with this sort of offence on regular basis should ignore his experience of the rate at which the offences of careless driving are comefore the Court. Tha. That would be, in my view, turning a blind eye to reality. Drivers of motor vehicles which are licensed to carry passengers from the public must exercise extra due care atention. This includes taxi taxi drivers who are frequently coming before the courts on charges of careless driving and other tr offences. The The public must be protected against such careless and inconsiderate drivers."[4]

9. The principle stated by then Muria J, clearly reinforced the need to drive carefully and on the other hand, the need to protect public from careless drivers. These are both corresponding duties this Court must from time to time send out its message to the public to adhere to.
   
10. In R v Dennis[5], the Accused was found guilty after trial for one count of careless driving. In that case, he was hit by another oncoming vehicle which was travelled westerly bound direction along the main road at Kukum hot bread area. He miscalculated the oncoming vehicle and as a result his vehicle was hit by that vehicle in the middle of the main road. His conviction was based on his failure to adhere to the right of way under the Traffic Regulation. His vehicle sustained more damage than the other vehicle. He was sentenced to a fine of $1,300 since I described him as a victim of his own mistake and his culpability is less than the middle range of the seriousness of this offence.
    
11. Your case is different from Dennis case. There is no issue about the right of way or the accident was caused by the other moving vehicle. As the evidence revealed, you ditched the vehicle because of your failure to drive properly and moreover, when you consumed alcohol. I find your culpability is towards the middle range of the seriousness of this offence.
    
12. After carefully taking into account all these factors and balancing them with the aggravating and mitigating features of your case, the appropriate sentence is a fine of $2200 to be paid by 4:30pm on 18/12/2015, in default, 6 months imprisonment.
    
13. Accused has 14 days right of appeal against this sentence.
    

ORDERS OF THE COURT

(a) Impose fine of $2200 to be paid by 4:30pm on 18/12/2015. In default, 6 months imprisonment.

(b) No order for disqualification of driving.

....................................
THE COURT
Augustine Aulanga (Mr)
(Magistrate of the First Class)

---

^[1] Penalties Miscellaneous Act 2009
^[2] R v Saru [1992] SBHC 56; HCSI-CRC 5 of 1992 (29 April 1992),
^[3] [1992] SBHC 56; HCSI-CRC 5 of 1992 (29 April 1992)
^[4] At page 2
^[5] CMC CRC No. 934 of 2014