R v Farobo [2020] SBMC 18; Criminal Case 446 of 2020 (2 June 2020)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 446 of 2020

In the Criminal Jurisdiction

BETWEEN: REGINA

V

AND: PATTISON NANAI FAROBO

Before: Emily Z Vagibule

Prosecution: Ms Ethel Mae’ue

Defence: Accused self-represented

Date of sentencing submissions: 2^nd of June 2020

Date of sentence: 2^nd of June 2020

SENTENCE

1. MR Pattison Farobo, the charge against you comprises of two traffic related offences. Guilty pleas have already been entered, after the charge was read out to you this morning. The sentencing and mitigation stage has already been completed, now, I will deliver your sentence.
2. As pointed out this morning, the maximum penalties for the offences you are charged with are as follows:
   • Count 1: 5000 penalty units^[1] or six months imprisonment or both; and
   • Count 2: 150 penalty units or 4 months imprisonment or both^[2].

In light of count 1, the maximum penalty was previously set at a fine of $500 or six months imprisonment. It was in the year 2009, that Parliament made a significant increase from 500 to 5000. Such increases speaks volumes of the collective views shared by our legislators when it comes to an offending of this kind.

3. Note that this is not the first case of its kind, already the court has dealt with a good number of cases such as this.
4. The facts of this case shows, that you were arrested on the 24^th of April, 2020. At the material time, you were driving a Silver Honda CVR that bears the registration number: MA-3849. Facts further states that you were travelling on the west bound lane. It was in front of the Kukum traffic Centre that you were pulled over by police. The license sticker displayed on your windscreen shows that your vehicle license had already expired. With the information recorded in the Justice Information management System (JIMS), the police found that both your vehicle license and third party insurance have already expired.
5. According to your explanation, you were travelling from Chinatown to Ranadi to collect some spare parts. It was on your way that you were arrested. Prior to that, you said that you were intending to go and apply for a permit. This in my view contradicts the direction in which you were travelling on at the time of your arrest. Had it been your intention to go and apply for a permit, then you could have done that when you were travelling from Chinatown.
6. The facts does not even tell me as to when your vehicle license had expired. Such information is very important for me to make an assessment that takes into account the proximity from when you were arrested to the date in which your vehicle license had expired. While this might not appear as significant, such information is very important for the court to consider. It was only after I enquired that the details regarding the vehicle’s expiry date was given to me.
7. I wish to remind Prosecutions that your duty as officers of the court, is to fully assist by giving detailed facts supporting the charge [s] at hand. This duty becomes heavier when an Accused is unrepresented, as was highlighted by Justice Kabui, as he was then, in the case of R v Kelly Dennie, Kenazo Maeka & Teddy Weba (Waiba) (Unrep. Criminal Appeal Case No. 12 of 1998)^[3]. This same duty will also apply when it comes to providing relevant statutory provisions for the court to consider.
8. Another important thing that the court wishes to hear from prosecutions, is whether or not a particular offence is being committed on a prevalent basis. If the answer is to the affirmative, then submissions ought to be done to address it.
9. In light of these offending’s, I need not say much as our laws have been in place for quite some time now. There have also been joint efforts put in place by the courts and the police to address the forever increasing number of traffic violations, however, people are still being ignorant.
10. With the efforts taken to prevent the Corvid 19 virus from reaching our shores, many are being reaped of financially. However, this does not in any way allow us to break any existing law [s]. You are matured enough to understand the very fact, that it is unlawful to use a vehicle that is without a valid license and third party insurance on the road. Should you not be in a financially stable position to comply with what is required of you, then you could have just left the vehicle at home. You could have also travelled via bus or cab to the Kukum Traffic Centre to apply for a permit, but you chose the opposite.
11. Your presence in court today is a result of your own decision making. I hope you will take this experience as a lesson you can learn from in the years to come.
12. When it comes to imposing sentences, I have always reminded myself that imposing the maximum should only be reserved for very serious cases. Recently, I have come to see that the prevalence of an offence should be reason enough to render an offending as serious in nature. While it might not warrant the court to impose the maximum penalty, it does warrant sending out a strong and hefty penalty that reflects the court’s position in light of the offences committed.
13. I also acknowledge, that while cases committed in this regard, might appear to arise from similar circumstances, the court must treat them separately. In other words, a case must be assessed based on its own set of facts or merits. While the court may encourage the use of cases in sentencing submissions, it is sometimes of limited guidance and assistance^[4] as was in the case of Sahu v Regina. This goes back to the significant need to assess cases on their own merits.
14. At this stage, I would like to make reference to the remarks uttered by Kabui J, as he was then, in the case of David Ironimo v R (Unrep. Criminal Case No. 3 of 1998):

'There is no hard and fast rules about the process of sentencing. There are many relevant factors involved^[5].

15. This view was supported by the remarks put down by Ward CJ, as he was then, in the case of Joel Likilia & Allen Kokolabu v R [1998/89] SILR, which states:

Sentencing is not a process that follows exact mathematical rules. Circumstances and people vary and it is undesirable to consider such comparisons as more than a very imprecise guide^[6] (Emphasis added).

16. It is very important that these remarks be put across so that parties can understand how the court has reached the sentence in this regard. This afternoon, I will consider the following factors:

Mitigating Factors

• Early guilty pleas;
• No previous conviction;
• Self-representation; and
• Personal circumstances.

On the other hand, I will also consider the following:

Aggravating factors

• Seriousness generally; and
• Your level of culpability which I find to be at the midrange of the seriousness involved.

17. Having said all this, I must also say, that the Road and Transport Act, as highlighted by Principal Magistrate Aulanga, in the case of Regina v Soniluvu, does not provide guidelines as to the type of sentence the court should impose at the first instance. It now becomes the duty of the court to impose one, which is fitting to the circumstances presented by any given case in this regard.
18. Hence, for purposes of personal deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution, I am of the view, that the appropriate sentence I should impose on you, is one of a fine. With this, I now order that you be fined as follows:

ORDERS:

(i) Count 1: fine of $1300;

Count 2: fine of 150.

(ii) A total fine of SBD$1450 payable by the 30^th of June 2020;
(iii) In default of payment, 2 months’ imprisonment; and
(iv) Right of appeal applies.

Dated this 2^nd day of June 2020.

____________

THE COURT

EMILY Z VAGIBULE-MAGISTRATE

---

^[1] Penalties and Miscellaneous Amendment Act 2009
^[2] Section 7 (1) of the Road and Transport Act
^[3] (Unrep. Criminal Appeal Case No. 12 of 1998)
^[4] [2012] SBHC 122; HCSI-CRC 504 OF 2011 (3 October 2012)

^[5] (Unrep. Criminal Case No. 3 of 1998)

^[6] [1998/89] SILR