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

Public Prosecutor v Tamata [2010] VUSC 74; Criminal Case 17 of 2010 (4 June 2010)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 17 of 2010

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

V

JOHN MARK TAMATA

Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak
Mrs Anita Vinabit – Clerk

Mr Lent Tevi for Public Prosecutor
Mr Colin B. Leo for the Defendant

SENTENCE

1. John Mark Tamata, you have admitted to committing offences of attempted intentional homicide contrary to section 28 and 106 (1) (a) of the Penal Code Act Cap 135, and to possession of firearm with intent to injure contrary to section 26 of the Firearms Act No. 7 of 1987. The former carries a maximum of 20 years imprisonment and the latter carries a maximum of 15 years imprisonment or a fine not exceeding VT750.000.
   
2. The high penalties provided indicate how serious these offences are.
   
3. I have considered all written submissions made by the Public Prosecutor and those made by your Counsel Mr Leo. I am grateful for those submissions. I have also had regard to the information made available to the Court by the Probation Service in your Pre-Sentence Report.
   
4. This is a case that is different in its nature and circumstances from all the cases cited by Mr Leo such as Vinagre (1979) 69 Cr. App R.104 and PP v. Justine Abel [2006] VUSC 30; CRC 10 of 2006. However, the principle about the abnormalities of the mind as defined by Lord Parker CJ in the case of Byrne [1960] 2QB396 at p. 403 places much weight on defence Counsel’s submission that even if a custodial sentence were to be imposed, it should be suspended based on your medical report.
   
5. These two offences were committed in concert and as such, it is the view of the Court that only one term of sentence should serve to cover both offending.
   
6. In view of the seriousness of these charges, the Court is of the view the appropriate sentence should be a custodial sentence. However, having had regard to your medical report and the recommendations by the Probation Officer, it is proper in the circumstances that the sentence be suspended and made into a supervision order. These options are available to the Court under sections 58 F and 58 G, 58 H, 58 I and 58 J of the Penal Code Act Cap 135, as amended.
   
7. Accordingly, the Court hereby convicts you on both counts and sentences you to a term of imprisonment of 2 years, but suspended for 2 years on supervision.
   
8. The special conditions of your supervision are –
   
   • (a) You must not re-offend.
     
   • (b) You must receive some spiritual counseling.
     
   • (c) You must undertake any rehabilitative programs as may be directed by the Probation Officer in charge of you during your term of supervision.
     
9. That is the sentence of the Court.
   

DATED at Luganville this 4th day of June 2010.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK
Judge