IN   THE MAGISTRATES’   COURT OF FIJI
AT   NAUSORI 
Criminal Case No: - 497/2017 
       STATE
V
		                      SUMET KUMAR SHARMA 
         For the   prosecution: WPC Siteri 
          For the accused: Mr.Verabalavu(LAC) 
          Date of Judgment: 16th of March 2018   
          Date of Sentence   : 19th of March 2018    
SENTENCE
1.	The accused was convicted after a hearing to one count of Bribery of Public Official contrary to section 134(1) (a) (1) and (b) of the Crimes Act No 44 of 2009(“Crimes Act”). 
2.	During the hearing the following facts were proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
3.	The accused was driving under the influence of liquor and stopped by police officers on 12/08/2017 at Koronivia , Nausori . At that time the accused was having a learners permit. To stop the arrest the accused offered $10.00 as a bribe to the police officers. Even when he was warned still he tried to offer the money and was arrested .Later he was brought to the police station for Bribery and charged by the police. In his caution interview the accused denied the offence and tried to shift the blame to police officers. He alleged that the police solicited $50.00 from him when he was arrested. 
4.	The maximum penalty for Bribery of Public Official under the Crimes Act is 10 years’ imprisonment. 
5.	In State v Blake [2014] FJHC 375; Criminal Review Case 005.2013 (29 May 2014) his Lordship Justice Madigan held that the tariff is from 09 months to 03 years imprisonment. 
6.	In Kumar v State [2017] FJHC 953; HAA120.2017 (22 December 2017) his Lordship Justice Goundar reduced the sentence of the accused who offered$200.00 as bribery to police officers from  18 months to 06 months imprisonment based on his young age , past good behavior and early guilty plea. 
7.	Considering the above judicial precedents and based on objective seriousness, I   select 15 months as the starting point for the accused. 
8.	 There are no aggravating factors. 
9.	The accused is absconding from the court and the counsel for the accused informed the court that because of that they were not in a position to mitigate. 
10.	But the prosecution confirmed me that he has no previous conviction and only for that I reduce the sentence by 03 months to reach 12 months imprisonment. 
11.	Now I have to consider whether to suspend this sentence pursuant to section 26(2) (b) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act.  
12.	In Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption v Niraj Singh unreported Cr Case No HAC004 of 2010; 19 March 2010 Justice Fernando said :
“bribery  is a crime which should not be treated leniently. It affects the whole public service and general public will loose faith and confidence in the justice system. Therefore deterrent and adequate punishment should be imposed”
13.	In State v Blake (supra) Justice Madigan said:
“Suspended sentences in a bribery context merely send a message that it is acceptable to offer bribes in some circumstances and the message must be given that it is never acceptable.”
14.	It is common practice to see the people who violated the traffic laws in this country trying to offer bribes to escape from the punishment. Hence deterrence sentences need to be imposed for people who have been convicted by the courts for such offences to punish them properly and to deter this practice from continuing in future. 
15.	Accordingly I sentenced the accused to 12 months imprisonment for this charge. Since he is absconding from this court this sentence will be activated from date of his apprehension. 
16.	28 days to appeal. 
        Shageeth Somaratne
Resident Magistrate