Regina v Douglas [2018] SBMC 13; Criminal Case 1012 of 2017 (18 May 2018)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 1012 of 2017

REGINA

V

JOE DOUGLAS

Date of Hearing: May 15, 2018
Date of Sentence: May 18, 2018

Mr. E. Konle for the prosecution
Accused in person

SENTENCE

1. The accused, Joe Douglas, was charged and pleaded guilty to one count of conversion contrary to section 278 (1) (c)(i) of the Penal Code. The facts that showed how he committed the offence are these. On the 4^th of August 2017, the complainant, Grace Saemanea, gave $1,200 to her daughter and advised her to give it to the accused for payment of taxi bill at the Kings Taxi Service. Towards the evening, the accused who was working as a taxi driver for the complainant arrived at the complainant’s residence and was given that money with full instruction.
   
2. Later in the evening, the complainant phoned the accused to know whether he had paid the bill with the money. He responded that he is yet to pay the bill because the owner of the Kings Taxi Service is a Sabbath keeper and would not allow payment of bills on Sabbath.
   
3. On the following days, the complainant again called him by phone to enquire whether he had already paid the bill with that money but he did not give satisfactory explanations about what he did with the money. He later turned off his mobile phone.
   
4. She later called the owner of the Kings Taxi Service and was advised that the bill is yet to be paid.
   
5. She knew that he had misused the money and so she sent him a text message for him to reimburse the money. He ignored and failed to do that and hence, she reported the matter to police.
   
6. Until today, the accused is yet to reimburse the $1,200 to the complainant.
   
7. He was charged by the Central CID police on 7^th September 2017 and bailed to appear in court on 25^th September 2017. He failed to appear and a warrant of arrest was issued for his apprehension.
   
8. His warrant of arrest continued to be reviewed until 26^th April 2018 when an arrangement was done for him to appear at the Central Magistrate’s Court. From then on, he was remanded in custody.
   
9. On 10^th May 2018, he preferred to take his plea to the charge without an assistance of a lawyer. On arraignment, he then pleaded guilty.
   
10. During the hearing of his sentencing submission, he explained that he used part of that money to repair the body of the vehicle he used. He admitted that he used the remainder of the money for his own benefit. He said that he is a family man and has two children. Two of his children were attending primary school at Tamlan in Honiara. His wife is not working and very much depended on him for family and financial support. He is the only one who works and supports his family on daily basis.
    
11. Before his remand, he rented a house. Now, his family already moved out of that house and lived with his sister in-law.
    
12. He said sorry for what he did and apologised to the court, the police, the complainant and the correctional service for his wrongdoing. He promised not to repeat it again in future because he realised prison life is not good.
    
13. He is a first time offender and pleaded the court for leniency for his sentence.
    
14. I give full credit for his mitigating and personal factors.
    
15. The brief synopsis of this incident narrated an account of a young father or family man whose wrong decision had costed him of a possibility of going to jail. Perhaps due to temptation for having in possession the money or might be due to financial hardships and pressures he faced as the sole provider for his family, he somehow made an erroneous decision to use the money for purposes other than what it was meant for.
    
16. In this case, I find that there is no doubt that he was given the $1,200 so that he could pay the bill at the Kings Taxi Service. The complainant trusted him so much since he was her taxi driver and that is why she advised her daughter to give him the money for that purpose. Instead, he betrayed and breached that trust, and used it for his own purpose and benefit.
    
17. I also find the accused action in keeping the money after the Sabbath is over shows he has deliberately intended to convert the money to his own use and benefit. That is why he did not want to give proper explanations about the money to the complainant when being contacted. When he turned off his mobile phone to avoid being contacted, that even exposed his real intention to convert the use of the money. He knew very well the complainant’s state of anxiety regarding that money, yet he ignored her deliberately.
    
18. Further, the money belongs to the complainant, Grace Saemanea. The admitted facts clearly showed that he did not have any bona fide claim of right or even any equitable interest over that money. He absolutely has no right to use it for his own purpose and benefit. After he had misappropriate it, he did not bother to reimburse it to the complainant even though he was kindly requested to do so in a text message. Through his action, he deprived the complainant from its rightful purpose and caused her unnecessary financial hardships to find or raise money again to pay for the bills at the Kings Taxi Service. She was put in a financial disadvantaged position as a result of his action.
    
19. His action is clearly improper and egregious. He knew very well that the money was given to him for a specific purpose and no consent was given for him to use it for purposes other than to pay the bill. Despite that, he instead converted it to his own use and benefit. He didn’t have any fear or even a second thought about the likely consequences of his action but decided to do an unlawful act, thinking that might be alright on his part. If he needs that money, he should have asked the complainant since he was her taxi driver. That is the appropriate and lawful thing he should have done other than to do what he did herein. I find his action is fraudulent, devious and prejudiced to the interest of Grace Saemanea in all manner. His action is clearly unlawful in its entirety.
    
20. By pleading guilty to this charge, I agree that he has committed an offence that has a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. However, it is trite law that he will receive a discounted sentence because of his guilty plea.
    
21. There is this common notion in sentencing of offenders involving theft, misuse or conversion of money in criminal cases that the larger the amount of money involved, the greater the sentence expected. This also operates the other way round.
    
22. In this case, the amount of money converted is $1,200. Since the amount of the money is not that substantial, the sentence to be imposed on him must fairly reflect the nature of the offence and his culpability.
    
23. This case will be decided purely on its own set of facts for purposes of the sentence to be imposed on him. To reflect the need for general and specific deterrence, and more importantly, misusing of monies irrespective of the amount normally have devastating consequences on the victims, in my view, a custodial sentence is the appropriate form of sentence for this case.
    
24. I therefore sentenced him to 8 months imprisonment. This term will be partially suspended pursuant to section 44 (1) (b) of the Penal Code in that 1 month of this term will be served in prison while the remainder of his term will be suspended on the condition that he is to be of good behaviour and must not be charged with any new criminal offence within the period of 12 months of the date of his release.
    
25. If he breaches this condition, he will be called upon to serve the remainder of his term forthwith.
    
26. I feel that this sentence alone is not adequate and must be accompanied with a compensation order for purposes of restitution. Thus, pursuant to section 27 of the Penal Code, I impose a compensation order in addition to this sentence, ordering the accused to reimburse to Grace Saemanea $1,200 within 30 days upon his release. This money will be levied on his moveable and immoveable properties for further hearings in due course if he fails to comply with this compensation order.
    
27. Right of appeal applies.
    
28. Order accordingly.
    

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE COURT

Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate