R v Oli [2020] SBMC 22; Criminal Case 602 of 2020 (24 June 2020)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 602 of 2020

In the Criminal jurisdiction

BETWEEN: REGINA

V

AND: JOHN IANNY OLI

JOSEPH SALIAMA

Before: Emily Z Vagibule

Prosecution: Ms Jessie Waifo

Defence: Defendants self-represented

Date of sentencing and mitigation submissions: 24^th of June 2020

Date of sentence: 24^th of June 2020

SENTENCE

1. Mr Oli and Mr Saliama, you are both charged with traffic related offences. For purposes of this sentence, I see fit that the charge against each of you be properly outlined. Hence, your respective charges are as follows:
   • (i) Oli: Count 1- failure to display vehicle license, c/s 13 (1) of RTA.

Count2- using unlicensed motor vehicle, c/s 7 (1) of RTA

Count 3-driving without a valid driver’s license, c/s/20 (1) of RTA.

(ii) Saliama: Count 1-permitting unlicensed motor vehicle, c/s 7 (1) of RTA.

Count 2-permitting unlicensed driver, c/s 20 (2) of RTA.

2. On the 23^rd of June 2020, you made the decision to represent yourselves in court, hence the charges were read out. It was at that time, that the court came to raise an issue with regards to the important elements of an offence, and the fact that prosecution had failed to fulfil that in the case of you, Mr Oli. The issue raised was with regards to how your name was spelt. I was of the view that this had an effect on the element of identity. Regardless of my frustration towards the carelessness of the Prosecutor involved, I allowed the application made to amend the charge. Such approvals on my part should not be taken advantage of by Prosecutions, because at the end of the day, it will only show how careless and unprepared they are.
3. On the 24^th of June, the amended charge for you, Mr Oli was filed. I proceeded by declaring that the pleas previously entered, be vacated, and hence, you were re-arraigned. Following this, guilty pleas were entered by the both of you, for each of the counts you are charged with.
4. Since you are both unrepresented, I gave you the opportunity to say something on your behalf, after the summary of facts were presented. This was purposely done to ensure that the pleas entered were unequivocal. Both of you, agreed to the facts, and Saliama, being the owner of the vehicle in question, explained the circumstances that led to these offending’s.
5. Having heard the facts and the explanation given by Saliama, I then entered conviction against the both of you, based on your own guilty pleas.
6. In light of the maximum penalties involved, I see fit that they be clearly outlined:
   • (i) Oli: Count 1- 5000 penalty units^[1], or six months imprisonment or both^[2].

Count 2- 5000 penalty units^[3], or six months imprisonment or both^[4].

Count 3- 5000 penalty units^[5], or six months imprisonment or both^[6].

(ii) Saliama: Count 1- 5000 penalty units^[7] or six months imprisonment or both^[8].

Count 2- 5000 penalty units^[9] or six months imprisonment or both^[10].

7. These maximum penalties alone, should speak of how serious these offending’s are. The general public needs to understand, that our laws are made for a reason. In my view, this might be a situation where using ones common sense could have been an alternative avenue, if one was not to know about the laws prohibiting the offences at hand.
8. The facts of this case is already known to parties, however, I wish to reiterate the story given on your part. Saliama informed me of how the vehicle license had already expired sometimes ago. Further to that, the vehicle was also in need of repair. In your words, Mr Saliama, you said that the vehicle was on heat. Hence on the day of the offending, the vehicle had been at the work-shop and was intending to travel back home to Visale, when it was pulled over by police.
9. I asked whether you had obtained a permit from the Kukum Traffic Department, as provided for under section 8 of the Road and Transport Act. The response, was yes, however, since such permits were only effective for 3 days, the one you had obtained had already lapsed. I understand, such permits would only run for three days, however, I am not given the exact provision that provides for the legal basis behind this.
10. From the facts, I see that you were arrested on a Friday, if it was true that you had obtained a permit, then it would have already expired. Ms Waifo had also confirmed that the permit will only run from Monday to Wednesday. Since the permit had already expired, you did not want to apply for a new one. Even If you were to apply for a new one, it may or may not be effective on the day you were arrested, given the three days period of effect, as mentioned by Ms Waifo.
11. However, I was not given a copy of this permit, to prove that there was indeed a permit. Hence I will leave that as it is.
12. Given the fact that the two of you are fully grown men, in the physical sense, I am sure you are both aware of what is at stake here. You have broken the law, by not taking the steps expected of you, to avoid getting into trouble. There is nothing much for me to say, but to simply remind the two of you, of the need to be conscious about your actions, when it comes to our national traffic laws.
13. As for you Mr Oli, facts shows that your driving license had expired since the 8^th of March 2019. A basic calculation would tell us that you have not renewed your license for over a year now. None of this would have happened had you done the right thing, by way of refraining from driving any class of vehicle permitted to you. While I understand that the corona situation has greatly affected so many of us, in terms of our finances, it becomes all the more reason for us to be sceptical about how we used to conduct ourselves before the rise of corona.
14. This afternoon, I will make reference to the case of R v Ball (1951) 35 CrAppR 164 where, Hilbery J, in his judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, commented at pages 165 - 166:

'In deciding the appropriate sentence a Court should always be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime, but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living' as referred to in Anna Langley v R (supra)^[11].

15. The sentiments uttered above, in my view, establishes the starting point as to the factors a court must always consider, in this regard. Further to that, the court will always be inclined to consider how each case comes with different sets of facts and people. As required by the court in most instances, that applications or submissions be done with the support of cases, comparisons are sometimes seen to be of imperfect guidance and limited assistance^[12]. However, comparisons would still be relevant to minimize objectionable disparity^[13].
16. With the prevalence of the offending’s at hand, the general public needs to be taught of what they would expect once they are caught in breach of the laws. On the other hand, I would like to see a much effective way of dealing with traffic operations by our officers at the Kukum Traffic Department. The fact that traffic offences are forever escalating, squares down to their failure to address their duties properly.
17. Hence with the factors before me, that being, the mitigating and aggravating factors, I am of the view, that the most appropriate sentence I should impose on the both of you, is that of a fine. As highlighted in the case of Regina v Soniluvu, the law in question does not proper guidelines as to the type of sentence the court must impose at the first instance^[14]. Sentences in this regard, ranges from that of a bond of good behaviour to fines to imprisonment. There are other circumstances which the court could allow for compensation to be paid.
18. It is with this, that I now order that you be sentenced as follows:

ORDERS:

Oli:

(i) Count 1: 500

Count 2: 1000

Count 3: 1300

(ii) Total fine of SBD2800.00;
(iii) Payment due on the 31^st of July 2020;
(iv) In default, six months imprisonment; and
(v) Right of appeal applies.

Saliama:

(i) Count 1: 1300

Count 2: 1300

(ii) Total fine of SBD$2600.00;
(iii) Payment is due by the 27^th of July 2020;
(iv) In default of payment, six months imprisonment; and
(v) Right of appeal applies.

Dated this 24^th of June 2020.

__________

THE COURT

EMILY Z VAGIBULE-MAGISTRATE

---

^[1] Penalties and Miscellaneous Amendment Act 2009.
^[2] Section 13 (1) of the Road Transport Act.
^[3] Above n 1.
^[4] Section 7 (1) of the Road Transport Act.
^[5] Above n1.
^[6] Section 20 (1) of the Road Transport Act
^[7] Above n1.
^[8] Above n4.
^[9] Above n1.
^[10] Section 20 (2) of the Road and Transport Act

^[11] (1951) 35 CrAppR 164, pages 165 - 166
^[12] 2012] SBHC 122
^[13] Unrep. Criminal Appeal Case No. 32 of 1996
^[14] [2016] SBMC 25; Criminal Case 613 of 2016 (27 September 2016)