|
Court |
Charges Heard |
Court Results |
|
(a) &nbbsp;&
sp; Roo Roochydore Magistrate’s Court Qld.
|
¨ &nnbsp;
Possess property may rably be suspectedected of b of being tainted
property.
¨ &nbssp;&n
Possess property suspected of having been used in connection with the
commission of a drug offence.
¨ &nb
ess dous d
>
¨
|
d>
22/07/2000
On all charges:
one penalty imposed. No conviction recorded.
Fined. (See
details in PI information paper). |
|
< |
|
|
|
(b) ;&nbssp;
sp;
Averley Local Court
N
W. . span/
&nbbsp;&&nsp;;&nsp; &nsp; 1 8
n>
|
Goods in custody
reasonably suspected of being stolen
(3 charges)
Open bank
account in a false name
8 December 1997
custody of false
instrument (driver’s licence) |
On each charge
convicted. See details in information paper.
Community
service order
Fined
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) &nbbsp;&
sp;
Magistrate’s Court
;&nbssp; &nsp; &nbs;
1 08//s96 |
td>
t">
Exceed speed
limit.
Fined
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) &nbssp;&nnbsp;
sp;
Sydney District &nbbsp; &nbbsp; Court
Cultivate
prohibited drug (cannabis)
Supply
prohibited drug |
Community
service
1">
Convicted (see
details in PI information paper). |
<
The defence counsel
put forward the following mitigating factors.
As to Raymond George
Winslett
- &nnbsp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbp;&&nbp;; &nsp; ;&nspp;&nssp;
He n>He is a is a policpolice informant by Australian Authority.
- &nbbsp; &nbbsp; &nbp; &nbp; &nbbp;&nnbsp;
span>He haHe has arrs arranged to make life here with his son and partner. No steps
taken by Australian Authority
- &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp; p;&nssp;
Authority waited 4 m to pe him with a resideesidency pncy permitermit. It . It
is not his fault. He was expected good treatment
by the Government of
Australia.
- &nbssp; &nsp; &nbbp;&nnbsp; &nbbsp; &nbp; &nbp;
Apart from imprisonment sentence or fiaymond George Winslett is
s
fa facing cing a pena penalty that his residency permit
can be cancelled.
Sean George Winslett
He is a drug addict.
He came to Vanuatu as curing destination for his drugs problems. He will
lose his residency.
In respect to both
Defendants, the defence counsel has spent some substantial time to put
forward investments made by
the two (2) defendants in Vanuatu which are
worthy considerable sums of Vatu. The investment constitutes a good
opportunity
for Vanuatu and its people. They provide local employment, jobs
to local people in particular people from Pango Village, Efate,
where the
Defendants build the “Breakers Resort”, which is one of the seven (7)
business activities of the Defendants
as it is reflected in the Business
Portfolio annexed by the Defence as Exhibit D1. The Business Portfolio sets
out the
7 Business activities in more details. It transpires that some of
the activities are partly done. Others are development plans
agreed on and
others are business projections for the future.
The defence counsel
provided also to the Court a letter written by some people from Pango
Village, Efate, requesting for
the Court leniency in the sentencing of the
two (2) defendants.
I have taken all
that into account. However, the offence as charged in Count 1 carries a
maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment.
It is a serious offence. A tem of
imprisonment is appropriate sentence for this type of offence. If the matter
goes to
trial, then, the appropriate sentence shall be 6 months
imprisonment. In this case, I take account of the guilty pleas of the
defendants. The adequate sentence to be imposed is 3 months imprisonment. I
am considering also to suspend the sentence.
However, I do not think it will
be the right thing to do in the circumstances of this case.
Both defendants are
convicted as charged in count 1 and sentenced in the following way:
§ &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;
p span>
Defendant Raymond George Winslett is convicted and discharged under Section
42 of the Penal Code Act [CAP. 135].
The reason being
that on the face of the charge, he did not make any statement on the
statutory declaration.
The part of the
statutory declaration which he was supposed to fill in by disclosing the
criminal charges he was convicted
of over the past 10 years, he left it
blank. The prohibition or criminal allegation, contrary to section 76 of the
Penal Code Act, is that the defendant made a false declaration. The
defendant Raymond George Winslett made no declaration. He could not
be
penalised of what he has not done. In effect, it is for the Immigration
Officer to check and require the defendant
Raymond George Winslett to write
done his answer to the question as asked but not to leave it blank.
<
§ &nbssp;&nnbsp;&nsp; &nsp; &nbssp; &&nsp;;&nsp; &nbp; &n p;
Defendant Sean George Winslett is sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.
The defendant Sean
George Winslett has crossed the part that he was required to fill in by
disclosing his criminal convictions
over the past 10 years. This means that
he has no criminal convictions which is a false information and as such is
penalised
under section 76 of the Penal Code Act [CAP/135].
Defendant Sean
George Winslett shall serve the 3 months imprisonment with immediate effect.
>
As to Count 2
as charged against each and both defendants as alternative to Count 1, the
following convictions and sentences are recorded
against each and both of
them:-
Ř &nnsp;&&nsp;;&nspp;&nssp;&nsp;
No
conviconviction tion enterentered aged against the defendant Sean George Winslett under section
43 of the Penal Code Act [CAP.135].
Ř &nnbsp; &nnbsp; &nbp; &nbp;
14 days to appeal.
Dated at Port
Vila, this 22nd day of July 2002.
BY THE COURT
Vincent
LUNABEK
Chief Justice
