R v Waleifiti [2020] SBMC 30; Criminal Case 624 of 2020 (10 August 2020)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 624 of 2020

In the Criminal Jurisdiction

BETWEEN: REGINA

V

AND: ROLLAND WALEIFITI

For Prosecutions: Mr Abel Maelanga

For Defence: Accused self-represented

Date of sentencing and mitigation submissions: 6^th of August 2020

SENTENCE

1. Mr Waleifiti, you have been convicted for the count of failing to display vehicle license, contrary to section 13 (1) of the Road Transport Act, driving unlicensed motor vehicle, contrary to section 7 (1) of the Road Transport Act, and using uninsured motor vehicle, contrary to section 8 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Third Party Insurance Act. Your conviction was entered after you agreed to the facts submitted by Prosecutions and after I gave you the opportunity to give your side of the story.
2. The facts given by Prosecutions shows, that on the 7^th of July 2020, the Kukum traffic Operations team was conducting a Random Breath Test, along the Mendana Avenue Street. The specific location identified, was the Central Police Station. First and foremost, I wish to remind those in charge of drafting the summary of facts to always ensure that they are clear and precise when drafting the facts. In most instances, facts tendered to this court have been so confusing and all over the place. Hence, if I do not understand what the facts are trying to say, then I do not think any unrepresented offender would also understand.
3. Further to what was previously stated, the officer sighted a vehicle with the registration number MA-1479 that was described as a purple Toyota corolla. The vehicle was then diverted for further checks, it was then that the officers came to find that there was no license sticker in front of the windscreen. Upon further investigations, it was found that the vehicle license had long expired since the 31^st of August 2015. As for the third party insurance, facts shows that it had already expired on the 23^rd of September 2016. Since you were the one driving the vehicle at that time, and with the discoveries made, you were then cautioned and charged.
4. On the other hand, you stated that the vehicle had been under repair and it was on your way home that you got pulled over by Police. The fact that your vehicle had been under repair will not change the fact that both the vehicle license and third party insurance have been long expired since the years 2015 and 2016. Your decision to drive that vehicle despite knowing about its condition, is a clear illustration of the NO CARE ATTITUDE that you share with a handful of likeminded offenders in this regard. Even if the vehicle was under repair, you knew that at some point it has to be driven back to your home, you should have applied for a permit on the day before.
5. I do not know why you would think that driving this unlicensed motor vehicle along the road would not be in breach of the Road Transport Act. This is nothing but a total dishonesty on your part. I hope your presence in court for the past few days should have dawned in your mind, what your ill made decisions would result in. I do not even see the urgency as to why the vehicle should be driven along the road at the said time and date, again, this shows your views when it comes to respecting our existing traffic laws. People like you need to be taught the legal consequences of your actions, because instead of leading a life of example, you are going in the opposite direction.
6. In terms of the maximum penalty for each of these offences, the following are laid out for your perusal:
   • Failing to display vehicle license: 5000 penalty units^[1] or six months imprisonment or both^[2];
   • Driving unlicensed motor vehicle: 5000 penalty units^[3] or six months imprisonment or both^[4]; and
   • Driving uninsured motor vehicle: 150 penalty units or four months imprisonment^[5].
7. The seriousness involved in any offence, will no doubt be reflected in the maximum penalties imposed by our legislators. I do not think that you are unaware of the legal implications you might encounter should you be caught when engaging in these offending’s. At this stage, there is nothing further to say, but to emphasis on the need for you and other likeminded offenders to respect and adhere to our laws, accordingly.
8. I am sure, you are already aware of what you could have done to avoid being charged, but you choice to bypass the law, and as a result, you must now face the consequences flowing from your own decision making.
9. Prosecutions has referred me to a number of cases previously handled by the court. This assists to the extent of minimizing objectionable disparity. On the other hand, the courts have always acknowledged the significant need to deal with cases based on its own set of facts and merits. While this court may have dealt with a number of similar cases, such as the one in hand, I have always paid due consideration to the facts surrounding the offending’s. Hence, if I was to compare the facts of this case to those highlighted by Prosecutions, I would say that the circumstances involved are somewhat different.
10. At this stage, I will highlight the remarks stated in the case of Joel Likilia & Allen Kokolabu v R [1998/89] SILR , where the court stated as follows:

“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 (Emphasis added)^[6]”.

11. These comments would still support the important of dealing with cases, on a one on one basis. With the prevalence of these offences and as a senior citizen of this country, this court will ensure that a strong message of deterrence be sent out to prevent yourself from ever doing this again, and also to prevent likeminded offenders to rethink should they be of the view that disrespecting our traffic laws is not a big deal.
12. Hence, for purposes of general deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation and retribution, and having considered the mitigating and aggravating factors involved, I am of the view that the most appropriate sentence I should impose on you, is that of a fine.
13. With this, I now order that you be sentenced to as follows:

ORDER

(i) Count 1, a sentence of $1000, due by the 31^st of August 2020, in default, 3 months’ imprisonment;
(ii) Count 2, a fine of $150, due by 31^st August, in default 10 days imprisonment; and
(iii) Count 3, a fine of $2000, due by the 31^st of August 2020, in default 3 months imprisonment.
(iv) A total fine of $3150 which is due by the 31^st of August 2020, total in default, 6 months and 10 days imprisonment.
(v) 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 13 (1) Road Transport Act
^[3] Above n1
^[4] Section 7 (1) of the Road Transport Act
^[5] Section 8 (1) Motor Vehicle and Third Party Insurance Act

^[6] [1998/89] SILR