IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Criminal Jurisdiction

Suva Criminal Case No. 25 of 1990

SENTENCE

The accused was originally charged with Murder in the Magistrates Court but that was subsequently reduced to the lesser charge of Manslaughter. With the benefit of counsel's advice and the depositions he has pleaded guilty in recognition that the manner and extent of his reaction in the circumstances of this case was excessive albeit unintended.

The facts outlined by the prosecution tells of how the deceased sought to gain entry into the Lucky Eddies Nightclub in Suva shortly before closing time on Saturday the 5th of May. At the time he was undoubtedly under the influence of alcohol as his behaviour and subsequent blood and urine alcohol analysis reveals. He was not unreasonably refused entry into the nightclub at such a late hour but nevertheless persisted in his effort to gain admittance.

To prevent this it was necessary for the accused who was employed as a bouncer at the club to use some force to physically restrain the deceased, whereupon the deceased picked up a stool and threw it at the accused. The accused retaliated with several punches to the deceased's face and body.

Police officers at the scene intervened and the deceased was taken to the CWM Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. A subsequent Post-Mortem revealed that he had died of brain haemorrhage.

This court is not unaware that the type of employment in which the accused is engaged exposes him to higher than normal risks of violence and abuse but that cannot be a licence for assaults on patrons who it must be accepted are themselves usually under the influence of liquor.

Instead a greater degree of self-control and restraint is called upon to be exercised by persons employed in such circumstances.

In this instance the general manager of the Lucky Eddies Night Club accepts that dealing with difficult even aggressive customers are an "occupational hazard" of the work of a bouncer at the Night Club.

He has spoken highly of the accused's personal character and professional approach to his duties as a bouncer and this court has no reason to doubt his offer of continued employment to the accused.

Nevertheless the accused has admitted an offence of Manslaughter which is an offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. That is not to say that such a sentence is appropriate in this case on the contrary a short sentence of imprisonment is called for in this case.

I have carefully considered all that has been so-ably urged on the court by learned counsel for the accused and although the accused has several previous convictions the last was in 1976 and since then he has led a "crime-free" life, is now married and has 2 infant children. I am content to treat him as a first offender in this instance.

To mark the seriousness of the offence I impose a sentence of 18 months imprisonment. However having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the personal circumstances of the accused together with his guilty plea, this Court is satisfied that this is an appropriate case in which to suspend the sentence for a period of 2 years.

The accused is warned that if he commits an imprisonable offence within the next 2 years he may be required to serve this 18 months imprisonment together with any other sentence that may be imposed for his re-offending.

(D.V. Fatiaki)
JUDGE

At Suva,
30th October, 1990.
HAC0025T.90S