IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Review Case No. 6 of 1998

REGINA

-v-

DAVID LELIANA

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS 
(PALMER J.) 

Criminal Review Case No.6 of 1998 

Hearing: 22nd May, 1998
Judgment: 28th May, 1998

R. B. TALASASA for the Crown 
L. KWAIGA for the Defendant 

PALMER J.: This is a review case brought up under section 50(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. The accused had been charged with three offences under the Traffic Act (Cap. 19) and convicted on his guilty pleas. These were: 

1. Driving whilst unfit to drive contrary to section 42(1) of the Traffic Act; 

2. Driving without a valid driving licence contrary to section 19(1) as read with section 19(4) of the Traffic Act; 

3. Taking and driving away a motor vehicle without consent contrary to section 58(1) of the Traffic Act. 

The accused was fined $150.00 under the first count, $100.00 for the second count, and $50.00 for the third count. No order for disqualification was issued for the first count and no reason given for not disqualifying. 

During that hearing, this Court ordered that the accused be disqualified for the statutory period of 12 months. Mr. Talasasa however also urged this court to review the fines imposed on the grounds that they were inadequate. 

Time and again this Court has reiterated that Magistrates should take time to consider and familiarise themselves with the relevant laws so that unnecessary omissions are not committed. I have come to notice that offences committed under section 42(1) of the Traffic Act (driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs) which require mandatory disqualification often get overlooked or confused with the discretionary exercise not to order disqualification. 

As a rule of thumb, whenever any person is convicted of driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs, that person must be disqualified for the minimum statutory period unless there are special reasons which justify a lesser period or no order for disqualification. Magistrates must get used to thinking about whether to impose an order for disqualification or not whenever any traffic offence is being dealt with. This will ensure that legal obligations are not omitted inadvertently. 

On the subject of adequacy of fines imposed, Mr. Talasasa submits that the fine imposed for count 1 of $150.00 on a comparative basis was inadequate. To be more correct it should be around $200.00, and he asks this court to increase the fine accordingly. 

Mr. Kwaiga for the accused argued to the contrary that the fine was adequate if the totality principle and mitigating factors raised were considered. 

On an individual basis, the fine imposed in respect of count 1 (driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs) was indeed inadequate as submitted by Mr. Talasasa. When the totality of the fines imposed for the three counts he had been convicted of is taken into account, bearing in mind that the said offences all relate to and were part of the same event, I am satisfied the amount of fine imposed was sufficient and that I do not need to intervene. 

ORDER OF THE COURT:

1. CONFIRM SENTENCE IMPOSED. 

2. DISQUALIFY ACCUSED FROM HOLDING OR OBTAINING A DRIVING LICENCE FOR TWELVE MONTHS WITH EFFECT FROM 22 MAY, 1998. 

ALBERT R PALMER
THE COURT.