Public Prosecutor v Tabi [2009] VUSC 123; Criminal Case 21 & 22 of 2006 (21 September 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(CRIMINAL JURISDICTION)

Criminal Case No. 21 & 22 of 2006

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

V

MICHEL TABI

Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak
Mrs Anita Vinabit - Clerk

Mr Gregory Takau for Public Prosecutor
Mr Christopher Tavoa for the Defendant

Date of Plea: 21st September 2009
Date of Sentence: 21st September 2009

SENTENCE

1. Michel Tabi, the two Cases or Files have been brought together by application from the Prosecutor. Effectively, the two charges brought separately against you are now made into one charge. It is a charge of Arson contrary to section 134(1) of the Penal Code Act Cap. 135 (the Act). It reads in Bislama as follows –

'MICHEL TABI yu blong Pentecost mo yu stap live long Kutan Village long Central Pentecost, samtaem long manis blong April 2003 long Sekerker Village, yu bin minim blong bonem down samples 7 natangura house blong man ia ENI TABILAP mo ol families blong hem long taem ia ol house ia i bon evriwan wetem ol properties insaed long hem mo yu bin save gud se hemi property blong narafala man.'

2. You pleaded guilty to the charge after it was read to you by the Clerk.

3. Arson is a very serious offence because it carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. What made this offending worse is that seven houses were burned down including personal effects and items in the houses. Further, the families and relatives who owned the houses were displaced by being relocated to another place and all the hardships they had to endure in such a relocation. Further and in addition to that, you destroyed their gardens and crops, their source of income and livelihood. The only explanation for your actions was that there was a dispute over ownership of the land.

4. But a dispute as to ownership did not give you the right to take the law into your own hands. There are established ways of dealing with disputes concerning land and you did not see fit to follow these but to resort to violence.

5. Clearly, you have broken the law and it is in the public interest that you should be punished adequately for your unlawful actions. And the aggrieved victims of your actions expect that you should make good some of the damage you did to their property.

6. The Court therefore convicts you in respect to the one charge of arson.

7. In regard to sentence, I have heard submissions from both Mr Takau and Mr Tavoa. I am guided by the Cases of PP v. Kalman [2008] VUSC 38, Cr. Case 106 of 2007 and Awen George v. PP [2009] VUCA 32, Cr. App. Case 19 of 2008 which Mr Tavoa referred the Court to.

8. You now have a previous conviction of 4 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years in Criminal Appeal Case 1 of 2009 which the Court has dealt with earlier today and immediately prior to this. These cases together paint a bad picture about you.

9. In Criminal Case No. 1 of 2009 the offences you were charged with happened in 2008. They are unlawful entry (section 143(1)) and Theft (section 125(a)). Those are different to arson. The arson charge occurred in April 2003 some 5 years earlier.

10. Today is the first time you have appeared in Court to answer this charge against you. The Court has tried to call your case two times previously at Melsisi in 2006 and 2007. You were not in Court at those times. Today it is good you have come forward and have pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity from your point of view. These are the only two relevant mitigating factors the Court would give you some credit for.

11. The victims of your offending have asked that you pay compensation to them for their houses and their garden crops which were destroyed. They have listed those properties and have placed some monetary amounts in respect of their houses. I am told all the houses were made of local materials. The Court does not know exactly how they arrived at the figures they claim. In total, their claims for compensation would be around VT9.800.000.

12. The Court accepts Mr Tavoa's submission that these are excessive in the absence of how these figures were arrived at. The Court will reduce that amount to VT1,500,000.

13. The final sentence the Court imposes on you are as follows –

(a) For your offending – You are sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. However, this is reduced by 1 year down to 4 years due to your mitigating factors. The 4 years sentence is to be consecutive to your 4 months suspended term of imprisonment imposed on you in respect to Criminal Appeal Case 1 of 2009. These 4 years are also suspended for 2 years from today on condition that you do not commit any further breaches of the law. If you do, these sentences of imprisonment will be activated immediately.

(b) Secondly, you must pay compensation to the victim in the sum of VT1,500,000. You must pay this amount within 18 months from today. This means that before end of April 2011 you will have paid VT1,500,000 to the victims of your offending. The victims will share this amount equally between them.

(c) You will pay VT1,500,000 in the following manner –

(i) First payment within 6 months from today to 31st March 2010 – VT500,000

(ii) Second payment within 6 months thereafter to 30th September 2010 – VT500,000; and

(iii) Third payment within 6 months thereafter to 31st March 2011 – VT500,000.

14. That is the sentence of the Court. A copy of this sentence is to be served on the victim of your offending.

15. You have a right of appeal against this sentence within 14 days.

DATED at Bwatnapni, Central Pentecost this 21st day of September 2009.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge