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

Dabuae v Director of Public Prosecutions [1984] NRSC 1; [1980-1989] NLR (6 June 1984)

[1980-1989] NLR
[Ed – No page no. in original]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

ALEX DABUAE

-v-

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JUDGMENT

In the District Court at Yaren the appellant was convicted of the offence of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, on 18 January 1984. He was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 9 months. He now appeals against that sentence.

Mr Keke for the appellant has submitted that the sentence is harsh and excessive. He pointed out that the appellant had not committed any previous offences within the preceding 5 years, and he relied on the circumstances of the offence. The evidence established that the appellant had been driving very slowly. In general he argued that the appellant, having conducted himself creditably in the community he could receive credit for that.

Mr Sharma adopted a passive role and submitted only that the sentence imposed by the learned resident magistrate should stand.

Unfortunately the offence of which the appellant was convicted is a serious one calling for a serious penalty. By way of background I repeat the words of the Chief Justice in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1981 D.P.P. -v- Sadrach Wabeiya where he said:-

Quote

Generally because of the prevalence of the consequence of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor and the consequent horrendously high incidence of death and serious injuries in traffic accidents on the roads of Nauru, a deterrent sentence must be imposed for the offence. In the circumstances of Nauru a fine is normally not a real deterrent; the Courts, therefore, have no alternative to imposing sentences of imprisonment in most cases.

Unquote

That approach in my opinion remains valid and appropriate in 1984.

Although the appellant has had a clear record for some five years the fact of the matter is that he has a previous conviction. The circumstances of the offence are not altogether favourable because although he was driving very slowly a long of traffic had built up behind him causing annoyance and frustration to other drivers with the likelihood that some of those drivers might try to pass the appellant in the inopportune place.

The fact that he did not plead guilty does not suggest any real degree of remorse or regret on his part.

Under all the circumstances giving the maximum weight that I can to the matters submitted by Mr Keke, I am unable to conclude that the sentence imposed was in any way harsh or excessive. The appeal is dismissed.

H. Gilbert
CHIEF JUSTICE

6th June, 1984.