R v Sigalete [2024] SBMC 1; Criminal Case 18 of 2024 (14 March 2024)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE COURT
IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS
In the Criminal Jurisdiction

Criminal Case No: 18 of 2024

BETWEEN:
REGINA

AND:
MICHAEL SIGALETE

Before: Michael Fagani
Mr. Abuo. S for Prosecution
Mr. Taedi. G for Defence

Date of sentencing and mitigation: 1 March 2024
Date of sentence: 14 March 2024

SENTENCE

1. The defendant Mr. Michael Sigalete entered a guilty plea to one count of using unlicensed motor vehicle and using uninsured motor vehicle. Today he appears before this court for his sentence.
   
2. The maximum penalty for using unlicensed motor vehicle contrary to section 7(1) of the Traffic Act, [Cap 131] is 5,000 per units or 6-months imprisonment or both and vehicle to be insured contrary to section 8(1)(b) of Motor vehicle (third party insurance) Act, [Cap 83] is a fine of 150 per units or 4-months imprisonment or both.
   
3. The agreed facts before me shows that on the 12 December 2023 at about 1000hr, the defendant drove an unlicensed and uninsured motor vehicle along Panatina highway road and caught by police. The vehicle is a white Toyota Sprinter car registration no: MA3868. At that time, there were three passengers at the back seat of the vehicle. The defendant was caught and brought to Kukum police station for further dealings. According to the Justice Information System (JIMS), it confirms the vehicle license was expired including its third party. The defendant was arrested and charged accordingly.
   
4. The aggravating factors which the court can see in this case is first, there are multiple offences committed. I note from the facts the defendant committed two offence at one time that is using unlicensed and uninsured motor vehicle at same time. The second aggravating factors is no care attitude. The defendant knew the vehicle license and third-party insurance license was expired but still drive the vehicle. However, counsel submit to the court that the reason why the defendant drove that vehicle at the time because he was transporting a sick woman in the community to the hospital. I acknowledge that submission since the defendant is playing the role of good Samaritan. However, it must note that traffic offences are strict liability offence. Once you drive a vehicle that is unlicensed and third-party insurance is expired, strictly speaking, you are breaking the traffic law straight away.
   
5. For mitigating factors, the court take into account the following mitigation factors on behalf of the defendant:
   • 5.1 He entered an early guilty plea at the first available opportunity. This shows genuine remorse and willingness to take up responsibility for his own unlawful action.
   • 5.2 He has no previous conviction.
   • 5.3 He was remorseful for his unlawful action.
   • 5.4 The court take into account the personal circumstances of the defendant that he is 32 years of age and married with one child.
     
6. In terms of sentencing submissions, prosecution submit for this court to consider a fine sentence of $500 for count 1, and $100 for count 2 as appropriate sentence for this case. On the other hand, defence concede to prosecution submission but alternatively, submit for the court to consider section 35 of the Penal Code^[1] as an appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant.
   
7. Before the court can go further to decide as to what should be the appropriate sentence for this case. I think it is important for this court to deal with defence submission on section 35 of the Penal Code as an alternative sentence for this court to consider.
   
8. The court had the opportunity to carefully consider section 35 of the Penal Code and I note that that particular provision provides for discharge of offender without conviction^[2].
   
9. To discharge an offender without conviction under that provision, it is significant for this court to consider the trivial nature of the offence or the extenuating circumstances in which the offence is committed. In other words, it is imperative to consider the seriousness or nature of the offence, whether it warrants a discharge without conviction under that provision.
   
10. I take time to peruse through the agreed facts and hear oral submissions and what I see in this case is first, the defendant commits multiple offence at one time. From the facts, I note the defendant used unlicensed and uninsured motor vehicle at one time. In light of that, court see the trivial nature of the offence is serious since the defendant committed two offence at one time.
    
11. Secondly, whether or not the extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed is justifiable for this court to discharge the offender without conviction. I acknowledge defence submission that the defendant commits the offence purposely to save life. In other words, he drove the expired vehicle because he was transporting a sick woman in the community to the hospital, which could be an extenuating circumstance for a discharge without conviction.
    
12. However, I must disregard that submission since no evidence of medical report was put before this court to prove that on that date, the defendant was transporting a sick woman in the community to the hospital. Defence fail to produce medical report of the sick woman to this court. The argument seems to be flawed without evidence. Should there be evidence produce to support that, then that should justifiable for this court to discharge the offender without conviction under that provision. In my view, to discharge the offender under that provision is not appropriate however, I am of the view that a fine sentence is appropriate given the circumstances in this case.
    
13. Considering the aggravating factors, mitigating factors, circumstances of this case and the personal circumstances of the defendant for count 1, using unlicensed motor vehicle, I will impose a starting point of $800 and using uninsured motor vehicle $100 fine.
    
14. In terms of sentence consideration, I will deduct $200 from count 1 to reflect the early guilty plea entered and $100 for other mitigation factors. Therefore, the resulting sentence would be:
    
    • 14.1 Count 1: Using unlicensed motor vehicle - $500
    • 14.2 Count 2: Using uninsured motor vehicle - $100
      
15. The court believe that this sentence is appropriate in this case and the defendant should learn from it and not to commit the offence again in the future.
    
16. Let me reiterate to the defendant. Driving unlicensed or uninsured motor vehicle is a strict liability offence, meaning when a vehicle is expired, you are not allowed to drive it. It is strictly breaking of traffic law if you go ahead and drive an expired vehicle. However, the only circumstances that warrants you to drive an unlicensed and uninsured motor vehicle is if you have a permit from the licensing officer to drive it. If you do not have a permit, it is better not to drive.
    
17. Having say this, and taking into account the aggravating factors of this case, mitigating factors, circumstances of the case and the personal circumstances of the defendant and weighing the entirety of this matter, I will now make the following orders:
    

ORDER

(1) I hereby sentence Mr. Michael Sigalete to pay a fine of $500 for using unlicensed motor vehicle and $100 for using uninsured motor vehicle.
(2) Subsequent to order 1, given both offences are committed at one time, I further order the sentence to be concurrent. This means the defendant will only pay a fine of $500 before 21 March 2024 by 4:30pm. In default, 30 days imprisonment.
(3) I enter conviction against the defendant.
(4) 14 days right of appeal.
(5) Order accordingly.

Dated this 14^th of March 2024.
THE COURT

......................................................
MICHAEL FAGANI
Magistrate – First Class

---

^[1] See section 35 of Penal Code it states, “Where, in any trial, the court thinks that the charge against the accused person is proved but is of opinion that, having regard to the character, antecedents, health or mental condition of the accused. or to the trivial nature of the offence or to the extenuating circumstances in which the offence was committed, it is not expedient to inflict any punishment, the court may, without proceeding to conviction, make an order dismissing the charge either absolutely or conditionally”.
^[2] Ibid, n 2.