R v Tauto [2020] SBMC 27; Criminal Case 419 of 2020 (8 May 2020)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 419 of 2020

In the Criminal Jurisdiction

BETWEEN: REGINA

AND: JERRY TAUTO

Before: Emily Z Vagibule

Prosecution: Mr Rodney Waokea

Defence: Defendant self-represented

Date of submissions: 6^th of May 2020

Date of sentence: 8^th of May 2020

SENTENCE

1. Mr Jerry Tauto, you have been charged with one count of careless driving and one count of presence of alcohol in a person’s blood. Following your decision to be arraigned on the 6^th of May 2020, the charge was put to you and guilty pleas have been recorded for both counts.
2. The sentencing and mitigation stage have already been completed and today I will be handing down your sentence.
3. The offence of careless and inconsiderate driving is one that previously carries the maximum penalty of a $500.00 fine, or six months imprisonment or both^[1]. However, in 2009, the fine was increased to 5000 penalty units^[2] ($5000).
4. With regards to the count of presence of alcohol in a person’s blood, the maximum penalty is, 10000 penalty units or twelve months imprisonment or both^[3].
5. These maximum penalties speaks volumes about how serious the offences at hand are. It also shows the concerns shared by our legislators amidst the urgent need to mitigate traffic accidents. Unless you have been living under a rock, then you would not be aware of all the traffic accidents occurring in and around Honiara, as being related to consumption of alcohol.
6. The facts of this case shows, that on the 16^th of April 2020, at a time between 2:45am to 3:00am, you were driving a Black Toyota Caldina Car, which bears the Registration number: MC-1266. Facts further states that you were travelling along the Kukum Highway Road. I understand that you were using the easterly bound lane when the time in question. It was at the Town Council Roundabout that this rather unfortunate accident occurred. Since the facts were not fully detailed, I asked you to explain how this had happened. You then stated that you were intending to drive towards the China Town area, as you were driving onto the middle lane beside the Roundabout, one of the tyres at the back of the caldina you were driving then burst. The other description you used was, tyre hemi punch, this is a description in Pidgin that refers to the tyre being flat or something along those lines.
7. There was no further details as to how the vehicle ended up the way it did, except for the most obvious thing, that is, your vehicle hitting one of the light poles in the Roundabout.
8. These offending’s are not the first of their kind. The court has already recorded hundreds of cases such as the one at hand. Regardless of the court’s effort to send out messages of deterrence to the general public, traffic offences are still committed on a daily basis. The fact that our Road and Traffic Act is still ineffective, can only mean that the Police are not doing their job. Instead of living a fine example, they may be the ones who are giving a bad impression to the general public to not adhere with our traffic laws.
9. While one is at liberty to blame the police for performing below standard, it is also our responsibility to always ensure that our actions are in compliance to the laws of this country. We cannot keep on blaming someone else for our own actions.
10. I cannot stress enough, the urgent need for people to start respecting our traffic laws. It is quite fortunate that no lives were lost during this rather unfortunate accident. As we speak, there are people who are serving time in prison, for taking away the lives of innocent people, whilst driving on the road.
11. While I acknowledge that your driving license, is still valid as well as the vehicle license, I would describe you as a very young driver, who has very limited knowledge of what is expected of him as a vehicle driver. Clearly, you made a wrong decision to drive, when you knew you have been consuming alcohol. This in my view, is pure ignorance and disrespect to the Road and Transport Act, specifically the sections forbidding all persons from driving whilst under the influence of alcohol.
12. Your decision making has ended up in a far worst situation, whereby the tax payers of this country will have to meet the cost of fixing the unnecessary damages you caused to the light pole. Every time we make bad decisions that result in damage to Government property, it is the tax payers who will bear the burden of paying for cost of damages and not you. You are now an adult, one that is already capable of making good decisions.
13. This accident clearly shows that you are not an expert driver, and I will not accept the fact, that the accident was beyond your control. Like I always tell previous offenders, accidents happen at any time through the least expected ways, and this is a classic example of what I had been referring to. Had you made the decision not to drive at the first place, then this would not have happened. But due to your ignorance, you then drove regardless of the fact that you were under the influence of alcohol.
14. Our legislators have foreshadowed such occurrences, hence, laws were put in place to address this. Had they not cared about the safety of all road users, then they would not have wasted their time and government money to put these laws together.
15. Overall, you should have figured that a vehicle in itself can be deemed as a weapon of destruction. I say this because it is capable of taking someone’s life prematurely if the person behind the wheel is not in his right mind. I hope this experience is one you can learn from for the years to come.
16. On that note, you never explained to me whether there was a sense of emergency that has caused you to drive the said vehicle. Had there been a matter of life and death, then I would have understood the urgency for you to drive when there was alcohol present in your blood.
17. With the maximum penalties being highlighted already, I have always acknowledged that imposing the maximum is only reserved for very serious cases. I do not know if the prevalence of offences was a factor considered by our legislators when they were distinguishing much serious cases to lesser serious cases. It is quite discouraging to see how sentences imposed on previous offender’s turns out to have very little effect towards general deterrence.
18. Drivers need to be taught a lesson to take their duties seriously. When they drive in an inconsiderate and careless manner, they are putting lives at risk. This falls in with the remarks highlighted by Muria ACJ, as he was then, in the case of Saru v R
19. Regarding the need for general deterrence for careless driving offences:

"No one can reasonably suggest that a Magistrate who has to deal with this sort of offence on regular basis should ignore his experience of the rate at which the offences of careless driving are coming beforeCourt. Tha. That would be, in my view, turning a blind eye to reality. Drivers of motor vehicles which are licensed to carry passengers from the public must exercise extra due care and attentihis includes taxi drivers wers who are frequently coming before the courts on charges of careless driving and other traffic offe The The public must be protected against such careless and inconsiderate drivers^[4].

1. In my view, the fact that an offence is committed on a prevalent basis, makes the offending serious. I say this because all offenders are aware of the fact that their actions are forbidden by the law, but choose to turn a blind eye on what is right. For the second count, Prosecution has cited the case of Cheffers v Regina, where Chief Justice Ward, as he was then, states as follows:

'Driving whilst under the influence of liquor is extremely serious offence. Anyone who drives in such a state has deliberately than a course of action that puts his own and far more seriously, other people's lives at risk. However carefully he may attempt to drive, his reactions if confronted with an emergency will not be as effective as when he has taken no alcohol^[5].

21. I do not know if the presence of alcohol in your blood was directly related to how the accident occurred, but either ways, its presence alone indicates how you have put your own live at risk.
22. I also acknowledge that each case must be treated separately, based on their own merits. This is why, comparing previous sentences imposed by the courts would not be of high assistance^[6]. This was the view highlighted in the case of Sahu v Regina^[7], and later cited by His Worship, Principal Magistrate Augustine Aulanga, in the case of Regina v Ramosala^[8]. It is only proper to assess each case based on the evidence present before the court.
23. In this regard, I wish to highlight the remarks made in the case of John Votaia v R, where Ward CJ, as he was then, 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^[9]”.

24. With the evidence and submissions before me, the following have been considered:

Mitigating factors

(a) Your early guilty plea;
(b) The fact that you are a first time offender;
(c) Remorsefulness;
(d) The fact that you are not legally represented; and
(e) Your youthfulness which indicates a prospect for change.

Aggravating factors

(a) The seriousness and the circumstances surrounding both offences;
(b) Your level of culpability which I find way above the mid-range of the seriousness involved;
(c) The time of the offending’s; and
(d) The involvement of alcohol.

25. Having assessed the entirety of this case, I do find that the circumstances involved renders this case to be very serious in nature. I hope whatever sentence I impose this morning, should act as a message of personal deterrence to you, as well as a lesson you can also learn from. Further to that, I hope that this sentence should make you feel responsible for your own actions. With this, I now order that you be sentenced to a fine as follows:

ORDER

1. Count 1, a fine of $3700.00;
2. Count 2, a fine of $5000.00;
3. A total fine of $8700.00 which is payable by the 26^th of June 2020;
4. In default of payment, 12 months’ imprisonment; and
5. Right of appeal applies to any party aggrieved, within 14 days from today’s date.

Dated this 8^th day of May 2020.

_______________

THE COURT

EMILY Z VAGIBULE-MAGISTRATE

---

^[1] Section 40 (10 of the Road and Transport Act of Solomon islands
^[2] Penalties and Miscellaneous Amendment Act 2009
^[3] Police and transport legislation

^[4] HCSI-CRC 5 of 1992 (29 April 1992)

^[5] Unrep. Criminal Case No. 11 of 1989
^[6] [2012] SBHC 122
^[7] Above n6
^[8] CMC-CRC NO: 1297 OF 2015 & 27 OF 2016, para 10.

^[9] (Unrep. Criminal Appeal Case No. 14 of 1991)