PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Magistrates Court of Vanuatu

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Magistrates Court of Vanuatu >> 2021 >> [2021] VUMC 12

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

  Download original PDF


Public Prosecutor v Wamelie [2021] VUMC 12; Criminal Case 1305 of 2021 (28 May 2021)

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
Criminal Case No. 21/1305 MC/CRML

BETWEEN:
Public Prosecutor


AND:

Bale Wamelie
Defendant
Date of Plea:
Date of Sentence:
26th May 2021
26th May 2021
Coram:
Trevor NAIEU
Appearances:
Terry Toas for Public Prosecutor
Defendant in Person

SENTENCE


  1. Introduction
  1. Mr Bale Wamelie pleaded guilty (“Yes hemi tru”) to the offences of domestic violence and intentional assault.
  1. Facts
  1. The victim who lodges the complaint against Mr Wamelie to the Police is Mr Wamelie’s niece.
  2. On the 28 day of December 2020 at Pinalum village in the island of Malekula, Mr Wamelie fiercely assaulted the victim.
  3. The residents of Pinalum village including the surrounding villages were celebrating two weddings on the 28 December 2020 whereby as part of the celebration few of them consume alcohol liquor and amongst those that consume alcohol liquor is the victim and Mr Wamelie’s wife.
  4. The victim and Mr Wamelie’s wife were drunk and dancing to the music played for public dancing as part of the celebration. The victim misbalanced herself while dancing and falls to the ground and while still lying on the ground, suddenly appearing from the crowd of people, Mr Wamelie took the opportunity and fiercely kicked the victim repeatedly with his legs and punched her face. Mr Wamelie was wearing a hard Yakka safety construction boots when he repeatedly kicked the victim.
  5. The incident was then apprehended by other family members who then quickly make arrangements for transporting the victim to the Norsup hospital for medical attention.
  1. Conviction
  1. Conviction is hereby entered against Mr Wamelie for the offending of domestic violence and intentional assault upon satisfaction that all the elements of both the offences were met.
  1. Sentence start point
  1. The sentence start point is arrived at after having considered the maximum sentence available for these offending’s and the careful assessment of the mitigating and aggravating factors of the offending’s.
  2. The maximum penalty for domestic violence is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding 100,000Vatu or both.
  3. The maximum penalty for intentional assault (s.107 (c)) is imprisonment for 10 years.
  4. There are no mitigating factors to these offending’s. The aggravating factor are as follow;
  5. The sentence start point I set for the offending of domestic violence is 6 months imprisonment.
  6. The start point I set for the offending of intentional assault is 2 years imprisonment.
  7. The start point I set for both the offending will be a concurrent sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.
  1. Personal Factors
  1. The following are mitigating factors personal to Mr Wamelie;
  2. The following are aggravating factors personal to Mr Wamelie;
  3. For Mr Wamelie’s mitigating personal factors I reduce 12 Months.
  1. End Sentence
  1. The end sentence appropriate for Mr Wamelie’s offending’s’ will be a concurrent sentence of 18 months imprisonment.
  2. This sentence is intended to deter the defendant and other like-minded perpetrators of domestic violence from resorting to violence as a first or only option to get what they want, or, to get their spouses or other family member to respect them, or, resort to violence as an excuse for the fact that the victim was disobedient towards their directions and orders or the excuse fact that the victim was being disrespectful.
  3. This sentence also echoes the same reasons clearly outlines by Judge Oliver Saksak in Public Prosecutor v Sao Christopher [2021] VUSC 49 who stated that;

“... 15. This is to mark the seriousness of the defendant’s offending, to mark public disapproval of his action, to set a deterrence for him and other like-minded persons, to protect the vulnerable members for the society and to punish the defendant appropriately. These principles are well established in cases such as R v Radich [1954] NZLR86 at 87, and Veen v The Queen (No.2) [1998] HCA 14, (1988) 164 CLR 465...”


  1. It is inappropriate to suspend all or part of the sentence due to the serious nature and the type of offending involved. There is obviously a need to protect the vulnerable members of the community from this type of conduct and the need for protection and prohibition of domestic violence.
  1. Right to Appeal
  1. The Defendant is advised of his right to appeal this sentence within 14 days if he does not agree with it.

Dated at Lakatoro this 28th day of May 2021

BY THE COURT


_______________

Trevor NAIEU

Magistrate


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUMC/2021/12.html