|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Solomon Islands |
HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL REVIEW CASE NO: 251 OF 1999
REGINA -v- JOHN FOUOTO
REGINA -v- STANLEY RAMO JIMMY
REGINA -v- GEORGE ULUI
HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER J.)CRIMINAL REVIEW CASE NO: 251 OF 1999
DATE OF REVIEW: 12TH AUGUST 1999
PALMER J.: The three accuseds, John Fouoto, Stanley Ramo Jimmy and George Ului, in these review cases had been each charged with separate offences of unauthorised sales of liquor contrary to what is now section 57(1) of the Liquor Act (Cap. 144). The three accused were caught in Police Operations mounted over a three day period (13th - 15th November 1998), in an attempt to curb the increased unauthorised sale of liquor around town. Search warrants were executed simultaneously by Police and large quantities of beer confiscated. In accused George Ului's case, two crates of SB beer were located hidden on top of the roof of his house.
Each of the accused pleaded guilty, were convicted and fined as follows:
(1) John Fouoto: fined $100-00, $20-00 of which was ordered to be paid to defray Prosecution's expenses;
(2) Stanley Ramo Jimmy: fined $100-00, $20-00 of which was ordered to be paid to defray Prosecution's expenses;
(3) George Ului: fined $120-00; $20-00 of which was ordered to be paid to defray Prosecution's expenses.
In each case, all the alcohol confiscated were forfeited to the State.
THE LAW:
Section 57(1) of the Liquor Act reads as follows:
"Any person who sells liquor without holding a licence authorising the sale thereof shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable-
(a) for a first offence to a fine of two hundred dollars, and
(b) for a second or subsequent offence to a fine of four hundred dollars or to imprisonment for one year or to both such fine and such imprisonment,
and upon conviction under this subsection, the offender shall forfeit all liquor found in his possession, custody or control, together with the vessels containing such liquor, unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order that only part or none of such liquor be forfeited. In the case of a second or subsequent offence the offender shall be declared after conviction to be, and shall thereupon be disqualified for holding a licence of any description for the sale of liquor for a period of twelve months from the date of such conviction."
The maximum fine one can impose is two hundred dollars. Having perused the files in each case I am satisfied no error in law or fact exists which would require me to intervene in the sentences imposed in each case.
Having said that, I make the following observations:
(1) The maximum fine of two hundred dollars in my respectful view is now too low. It is obvious offenders are fully aware of the risks but are in it for the quick money and profits that can be obtained.
(2) Offences of this nature. accordingly have not declined but increased with associated problems.
The Police have worked hard to arrest the culprits and bring them to the courts. Illegal sales of liquor, in particular beer however have continued unabated. In view of these matters, it is my respectful view, Magistrates across the country must seriously consider imposing the maximum fine of $200-00 unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so. This will soon be the subject of a practice direction from the Honourable Chief Justice and must be heeded by all Magistrates.
The responsible authorities should also now consider a general increase in the penalties prescribed in Part IX of the Liquor Act (Cap. 144).
THE COURT
PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1999/77.html