Regina v Soniluvu [2016] SBMC 25; Criminal Case 613 of 2016 (27 September 2016)

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

Criminal Case No. 613 of 2016

Regina

v

James Soniluvu

Prosecution: Mr. Nasiu of Police Prosecutions
Defence: Accused appear in person
Hearing: September 27, 2016
Sentence Delivered: September 27, 2016

Sentence

1. You pleaded guilty to one count of careless driving contrary to section 40 (1) of the Road Transport Act and one count of presence of alcohol in person’s blood contrary to section 43A of Police and Transport Legislation (Amendment) (Alcohol Testing) Act 2016. For the first charge, it carries a fine of $5,000 or 6 months imprisonment according to the Penalties Miscellaneous Act 2009. For the second charge, it carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 or 1 year imprisonment.
   
2. The summary of facts showed that on 26^th of September 2016 between 1pm -3pm, you drove a blue Toyota Rav-4 registered MB-3804 along the prince Philip Highway. When you reached Burnscreek area on your way eastward direction, you crashed onto a rear side of another vehicle described as a Suzuki Escudo registered as MA-3426. As a result, both vehicles sustained damage. This incident resulted in the police attended to your vehicle at the scene. You were suspected of driving whilst under the influence of liquor. Police conducted a breathalyzer test with you at the road side to determine whether you had alcohol. You test result showed a reading of 0.329%. The final test was conducted at the Police Station and the result was 0.294% of alcohol present in your blood. This was above the required limit for driving which should be 0.049%.
   
3. The aggravating features for both offences in your case I find are: you caused unnecessary damage to the other vehicle. Your manner of driving was selfish and inconsiderate to other road users. This shows that you also exposed other road users to high risks of motor vehicle accident. Despite you knew you consumed alcohol you continued to drive that vehicle.
   
4. On the other hand, I find the following to be mitigating features in your case. They are: you pleaded guilty to the offences at your earliest opportunity. This saves the Court’s time and resources. It demonstrated that you are not only respecting the law but also shows you are an honest person. You verbally expressed your sorry in Court. This shows that you have admitted your own fault. It also reflected your remorse. You are a first time offender with no prior conviction and a married person. You also worked for the Panpacific Company and no doubt, you are a human resource for that company. I give full credit for these factors I have just alluded to in your favour.
   
5. I must stress it here that vehicle(s) can be a dangerous weapon if it is not properly and carefully driven. It can be dangerous to the driver and any innocent road user. It may lead to premature ending of one’s life. Given the obvious increasing number of vehicles in Honiara, the Court must also through its deterrent messages protect the public by sending appropriate sentence not only to you but to other potential offenders that those who commit this offence in offence will be punished in the same way.
   
6. In John Votaia v R^[1] Ward CJ stated:
   

“The level of sentence must relate to the nature and manner of the driving itself. It is not unusual for a minor lapse by a driver to have very serious effects but, if the lapse was simply a lack of due care and attention, it remains careless...”^[2]

7. I find the level of your culpability is at the mid-range of the seriousness of these offences. That is, you were drunk when you drove the vehicle, you were not careful with your driving and that was why you ended up colliding with the other vehicle.
   
8. In my view, if we need to protect our road users from this type of bad piece of driving, the Court should send a message not only to you but to those potential offenders that this Court won’t tolerate this type of offending.
   
9. In terms of sentence, the Road Transport Act does not provide a guideline as to which type of sentence should come first whether custodial or fine. In any event, the Court has a discretion to impose what ought to be the appropriate form of penalty by looking at the facts of each case.
   
10. After carefully taking into account all these factors and balancing them with the aggravating and mitigating features and the need for deterrence, I imposed the following sentence on you:
    
    • One count of careless and inconsiderate driving -$1,000
    • One count of presence of alcohol in person’s blood - $,4000
      
11. Total fine of $5,000 to be paid by the Offender before or by 25^th of November 2016. In default, 6 months imprisonment.
    
12. Accused has a right to appeal his sentence within 14 days as of today pursuant to section 285 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
    

___________________________________________

The Court

Augustine Aulanga - Principal Magistrate

---

^[1] (Unrep. Criminal Appeal Case No. 14 of 1991)
^[2] At page 3