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

Public Prosecutor v White [1999] VUSC 35; CRC 003 1999 (27 August 1999)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR No. 03 of 1999

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-v-

KEVIN WHITE

Mrs Kayleen Tavoa for the Public Prosecutor forState
Mr John Malcolm for the Defendant

<

SENTENCE

In sentencing the court already have the benefit of hearing the evidence and submissions and the court is in a much better posito assess what will be an appropriate penalty to imposempose on the defendant. The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The court has discretion to impose a level of penalty however, the court can also impose alternative penalty. Again this will depend very much on the seriousness of the offence. Punishment serves a purpose either for deterrence or restitution or rehabilitation. This means the court has wide discretion to impose any penalty prescribe under the law giving jurisdiction to the court to impose.

In this case the court found that the defendant was not reckless or not driving in not observing the law but purely negligence in his driving. What happen here was that the decease walked on to the road already and it was dark at that time and it was also raining a little and as such the risk was very high for any driver to ensure that he drives with the greatest care and like wise the decease was also to take care in crossing the road to avoid being hit by a vehicle. There were no other aggravating factors in the manner of driving of the defendant such as consuming liquor or drug or being careless to another road users a part from the risk as stated already above. The duty is also place on any other pedestrian to ensure that the road is quite clear and safe before crossing the road. In the decease situation he was very young and sometimes this type of concern or risk may not be important to them because of their young age and not being mature enough to make some decision at times. In my view this situation could not have happened like these if it was in a broad day light where both the defendant and the decease could see clearly and to avoid such incident happening. In this case the defendant should not wholly blamed for what happened on that day as the decease also contributed as to how the incident came about.

In view of what I have stated this court consider that the nature of the offence do not warrant a custodial sentence even though a deterrence penalty would be the most appropriate penalty to impose for this type of offence. Purely for safeguarding the safety of the general public in using the roads. How ever, the circumstances of the offence does not really call for a custodial sentence and therefore I will impose a court fine as the alternative penalty.

For all these reasons I now convicted the defendant and ordered him to pay a court fine of 50,000 vatu as alternative penalty within 30 days in default be imprisonment for a period of one week for every 1,000 vatu not paid. The imprisonment period if fine not paid shall not exceed the period of imprisonment under section 108(c) of the Penal Code.

How ever, the penalty would have been much different to this penalty if the defendant was reckless or failure to observe the law in the manner of his driving which is quite more serious than negligence driving. And for these reasons the penalty impose above is the most appropriate penalty this court can impose on the defendant.

DATED AT PORT VIRT VILA this 27^th day of August 1999.

REGGET MARUM MBE
Acting Judge