R v Patala [2020] SBMC 29; Criminal Case 442 of 2020 (10 August 2020)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 442 of 2020

In the Criminal Jurisdiction

BETWEEN: REGINA

V

AND: ALICK PATALA (1^ST DEFENDANT)

ALEX CARLOS HAIKAU (2^ND DEFENDANT)

Appearing for Prosecutions: Mr Moffatt Tei

Defence: 2^nd Defendant appear in person

Date of sentencing and mitigation submissions: 4^th of August 2020

Date of Sentence: 10^th of August 2020

SENTENCE

1. Mr Alex Carlos Haikau, you are jointly charged with one, Alick Patala, for offences relating to the Road Transport Act. You were both bailed to appear before the court on the 12^th of May 2020, however, the both of you never turned up and hence, warrants of arrest were issued for the both of you. Fortunately, you were brought to court on the 3^rd of August 2020, and after I enquired into your absence on the 12^th of May 2020, I then cancelled your warrant of arrest. As for your co-accused, Mr Patala, he is still at large.
2. You entered your plea on the 3^rd of August 2020, after you opted to represent yourself. From that plea, I recorded a guilty plea on your part. The sentencing and mitigation stage has already been completed, and today I will hand down your sentence.
3. For purposes of this sentence, I will outline the charge against you as follows:

Count 1: Permitting unlicensed motor vehicle, contrary to section 7 (1) of the Road Transport Act, and Count 2: Permitting unlicensed driver, contrary to section 20 (2) of the Road Transport Act.

4. The facts tendered by Prosecutions states, that on the 21^st of April 2020, a person later known as Alick Patala was driving a silver Toyota corolla, with the Registration number: MB-2450, along the Tandai Highway. This vehicle was heading towards the easterly direction. It was found that the license sticker on the wind screen had already expired, it was also found that the person driving this vehicle does not have a valid driving license. Further to that, it was found that the vehicle is owned, by one Carlos Haikau. It was due to this, that both Mr Patala and yourself, were charged.
5. I then gave you the opportunity to explain you side of the story, and you stated, that on that day, you asked Mr Patala to drive the vehicle back to Marble Street. The vehicle had previously been at Savo heights, and since someone had broken one of its glasses, you feared for its safety and wanted to have the vehicle driven back to Marble Street. It was when the police diverted the vehicle that you came to realise that Mr Patala does not have a valid driving license. In terms of the vehicle’s license, you knew that it had already expired, but you did not foresee that there will be a police check, and that your intentions were only to move the vehicle to where it would be safe.
6. As per the Road Transport Act and the Penalties and Miscellaneous Amendment Act of 2009, the maximum penalties for the offences you committed are: Count 1- 5000 penalty units^[1] or six months imprisonment or both^[2], and Count 2- 5000 penalty units^[3] or six months imprisonment or both^[4].
7. At paragraph 19 of the case of Regina v Kemakeza, His Lordship , Sir Albert Palmer, CJ, highlighted the following with regards to the level of seriousness involved in an offending:

“The level of the seriousness of offences is reflected on a prima facie basis by what the law imposes as the maximum penalty imposed. The more serious an offence, the greater the maximum penalty imposed^[5]”.

8. In terms of the law in breach, it is correct to say that the offences at hand are among those labelled as serious. Prior to the year 2009, the maximum penalty for both these offences fines of 500 dollars, with alternatives of six months imprisonment. A significant increase from 500 to 5000 should speak volumes of the level of tolerance shared by our legislators in terms of these offending’s.
9. The courts have also shown their stance in this regard, and regardless of the hefty penalties imposed on previous offenders, people are still committing these offences. Having dealt with a good number of cases similar to the one at hand, I have come to ask myself, whether there is something wrong with the way the courts have been dealing with such cases, or whether the continuous offending’s in this regard is a result of slack and ineffective enforcement of the Road and Transport Act. The court might impose harsh sentences with the hope of deterring the general public from engaging in these offending’s, but if the processes relating to the enforcement of the Road and Transport Act are not carried out accordingly, then there will be minimal reception by the public, and as a result, traffic cases will continue to increase.
10. Laws are ought to be respected and complied with, the very fact that people are committing offences such as the ones at hand, without any second thoughts as to the legal consequences, should raise serious concerns.
11. When someone intends to own a vehicle, he or she should be familiar with all the do’s and don’ts. It is not a defence to say that one does not know what might happen if an unlicensed motor vehicle is used on the road, and what would happen if an unlicensed driver is driving a vehicle. While I understand that you were trying to move the vehicle to safety, you could have applied for a permit from the Kukum Traffic Centre to avoid what you have now gotten yourself into. Even if this was the case, you should have also enquired to see if Mr Patala does have a valid driver’s license or not.
12. For offending’s such as the ones you have been charged with, the court has previously passed sentences ranging from $1000 fines to $2000 fines. While I have always acknowledged that each case must be dealt with according to its own merits, comparing previous sentences should still be considered to minimize objectionable disparity.
13. In his sentencing submissions, Mr Tei has touched on how, the offences at hand are being committed on a prevalent basis. I do not think you are unaware of the prohibitions made by law, against what you did. I can only conclude, with what is before me, that you deliberately broke the sections within the Road Transport Act, specified in your charge. People like you need to be taught a lesson to start taking our laws seriously.
14. During the sentencing and mitigation stage, I took note of the aggravating features involved in this case, as well as the mitigating features involved. In terms of the aggravating features, Prosecutions did not actually point out the actually features, instead he stated something along the lines of ensuring that there is a valid vehicle license and driver’s license before a vehicle is used. I expected Prosecutions to submit on the seriousness generally, the level of culpability and any other factor which best falls under this category. In terms of the mitigating features, you told me that I should consider the fact that you are a first time offender, as well as the fact that you are suffering from health issues.
15. Overall I have taken note of the following in relation to the aggravating and mitigating factors:

Aggravating

• Seriousness generally;
• Your age, which was not reflected in the actions and decisions you made; and
• Your level of culpability which in your case, is found a little over the mid-range of the seriousness involved. I say this because it was your deliberate decision to have this vehicle driven on the road when you knew that the vehicle license had already expired. Further to that, you also failed to apply for a permit which could have assisted on your part.

Mitigating

• Early guilty plea;
• First time offender;
• Genuine remorse; and
• Personal circumstances.

16. Having identified these factors I will now emphasis on the fact that before passing a sentence, the court must ensure that, one if not all, sentencing theories must be considered. These theories involves deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation, and retribution. However, I believe as times change, there will be additional theories added to those identified.
17. Hence, having assessed the entirety of this case I am of the view that a sentence of fine is appropriate. Given the prevalence of these offending’s, I will ensure that the amount this court will reach, should be an epitome of the view taken in light of these offences.
18. With this, I now order that you be sentenced to a sentence of fine as follows:

ORDERS

(i) For count 1 which bears the maximum penalty of 5000 penalty units or six months imprisonment or both, a fine of $1000.00 due by the 31^st of August 2020. In default, 3 months’ imprisonment.
(ii) For count 2 which bears the maximum penalty of 5000 penalty units or six months imprisonment or both, a fine of $1000.00 due by the 31st of August 2020. In default, 3 months’ imprisonment.
(iii) Total fine is $2000.00 due by 31^st August 2020, in total default, 6 months’ imprisonment.
(iv) Right of appeal applies.

Dated this 10^th day of August 2020.

_____________

THE COURT

Emily Z Vagibule- Magistrate

---

^[1] Penalties and Miscellaneous Amendment Act 2009
^[2] Section 7 (1) of the Road Transport Act
^[3] Above n 1
^[4] Section 20 (1) of the Road Transport Act

^[5] [2008] SBHC 41; HCSI-CRC 467 of 2007 (3 September 2008)