R v Pazata [2019] SBMC 29; Criminal Case 245 of 2019 (13 September 2019)

IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT MAGISTRATE’S COURT )
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT GIZO )

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 245 of 2019

REGINA
-v-
ELLIOT PAZATA

Mr. Ronnie Pisei for the Prosecutions
Accused in Person

Hearing date: September 6^th, 2019
Date of Sentence: September 13^th, 2019

SENTENCE

1. The accused, Mr. Elliot Pazata pleaded guilty to one count of Careless driving contrary to section 40 (1) of the Road and Transport Act (Cap. 131) and Presence of Alcohol in Persons Blood contrary to section 43A (1) (a) of the Road and Transport Act (Cap. 131) as amended by the Police and Transport Legislation (Amendment) (Alcohol Testing) Act 2016. Premised on his unequivocal guilty pleas I entered conviction against him.
   
2. The facts are wholly accepted when read to the accused, hence, I proceed to adopt it in its entirety. The accused is a Habitual offender, having been convicted for the same offences twice between, March 2018 and 23^rd August 2018. On 23^rd of August, 2018, he was sentenced to an imprisonment term of 5 months, which he faithfully served. As apparent, this is the third offence, and it happened just months after his release from custody.
   
3. I must say quite firmly that the accused surely have problems with two elements, Alcohol and vehicle, as apparent from his criminal history, when he consumes alcohol he’s more attracted to vehicle and thereby prone to traffic offences.
   
4. He begged the court to give him another chance, he said that since the commission of the current offences charged, he has abstained from alcohol and vehicle. While I might accept his genuine remorse from his early guilty plea without assistance of a lawyer, I am mindful that his pleas and physical appearance in court is not sugarcoated by his knowledge and familiarity with the Court’s procedure.
   
5. He appears from remand today, because I had informed him that an immediate custodial sentence is inevitable. Having said that, I now proceed to consider the aggravating factor in his case.
   
6. I noted that the accused fled the scene after he reversed and hit a stationary brown Toyota sprinter. It reflects someone who wants to conceal his identity and intends to bypass the law of this country for reason that he knows full well the police would attend to the scene and possibly apprehend him if he remains.
   
7. I accept that he merely reversed his vehicle when it accidently hit the other vehicle. Clearly, any speed limit would not be above 20 km/hr. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any damage to the brown Toyota sprinter vehicle. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that he is driving carelessly, his coordination and proper reasoning’s were clouded because of his intoxicated state of mind.
   
8. Having considered the accused sole aggravating factor, circumstance of offending and the level of culpability. I fixed the appropriate starting point as follows:
   
   • (a) Careless driving – 4 months’ imprisonment
   • (b) Presence of Alcohol in person’s blood – 18 months’ imprisonment.
     
9. The sentencing consideration is as reflected:
   • 9.1. For offence of careless driving – I reduce 1 months to consider his early guilty plea to reflect the 25 % discount available in the case of Qoloni. The resulting sentence is therefore, 3 months’ imprisonment.
     
   • 9.2. For charge, of Presence of Alcohol in person’s blood – I reduce 6 months to consider the accused guilty plea which saves the courts time and resources of having a full trial. It reflects honest remorse on his part as well. The resulting sentence is 12 months’ imprisonment.
     
10. Since both offences happened within the same transaction or incident, I agree any sentence must be served concurrently.
    
11. The accused should now learn to absorb the fact that the court is not a playing ground, instead, it is an institution to direct him to understand his wrongs and potentially make a positive change in his life. There is no gold medallist award given for people who frequent this court to receive sentence for their wrongdoings, it will only waste most of their precious time that if spent with family members and on valuable things would entirely benefit them. Change is at the doorstep but it is him who is responsible to open the door, do it now or he will continue to see this Court and the Correction centre.
    

Sentence Orders:

1. I sentence the accused, Mr Elliot Pazata to 12 months’ imprisonment.
2. Sentence shall be served concurrently.
3. Sentence to commence from date of first remand.
4. Right of appeal applies within 30 days of this sentence.
5. Order accordingly.
   

THE COURT

.........................................................
MR. LEONARD. B. CHITE
Principal Magistrate