Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Nauru

Dediya v Republic [1976] NRSC 8; [1969-1982] NLR (D) 57 (22 October 1976)

[1969-1982] NLR (D) 57

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal 14 of 1976

JOHANNES DIABOUYA DEDIYA

v

THE REPUBLIC

22^nd October 1976

Sentence - negligent driving - sentence must be determined by reference to what constitutes the negligent driving.

Appeal against a sentence of three months’ imprisonment for negligent driving contrary to section 19(1) of the A Motor Traffic Act 1937-1973. The appellant pleaded guilty. The facts stated to the District Court by the prosecutor, and admitted by the appellant, did not disclose the manner in which he was driving but established that his car ran into a power pole and that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Held: The sentence must: be determined by reference to the offence which is charged and not take into account matters relevant only to a different and more serious offence.

R. Degoregore for the appellant.
D. Gioura for the respondent.

Thompson CJ:

JUDGMENT: The facts do not establish clearly in what way the appellant’s driving was negligent. If the allegation of intoxication was to be made, it should have formed the basis of a charge of driving under the influence of drink. The sentence should be adapted to the facts of the actual offence charged, i.e. negligent driving. As practically no facts as to the manner of driving were before the Court, except: that it ended in the vehicle colliding with a wall or pole, there was no proper basis for a severe sentence.

The appellant can still be charged with the offence of driving under the influence of drink if the police wish. So far as the offence of which he has been convicted is concerned, the sentence must be reduced to what may be called the normal sentence for such an offence.

Accordingly the appeal is allowed: The sentence is set aside and a sentence of a fine of $20 or 1 week’s imprisonment in default