MISAEL RONOLEO
Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A
Saksak
Cynthia Thomas - Clerk
<
Counsel: Inspector Wilson Garae
-for the Public Prosecutor
Mr Hillary Toa - for the
Defendant
SENTENCE
This man appeared and pleaded
guilty to a charge of intentional lt contrary to section 107( 107(b) of the
Penal Code Act [CAP.135].
It is alleged by the
Prosecution that the Defe had on 23rd November, 1997 assaulted his
wife, the cthe complainant, with
a piece of wood. As a result she suffered a
broken leg which she claims was broken three times. All this happened only
because the wife had abused her husband publicly and he was embarrassed
about it all. It is alleged that he dragged her on
the tar sealed road and
then beat her up.
The Defendant admitted all this
to the Police when he made a statement the next day 24th November, 1997.
Medical t dated 24th
November 1997 shows -
ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
(a) p;&nssp; Fracture of t of tft
distal tibia,
(b)   &nbp; sw llen left wrft wrist.
This man appeared in Court in
1991. He was fined vt2,000.
tigation, Mr Toa told the
Court that this man is a father of 8 children of whom 2 are2 are married, and 6
are still living
and depending on him. He is the only bread-winner in the
family. He works at a Biscuit factory in Luganville earning vt12,000
per
fortnight. He pays rent for 2 rooms for his family. He houses his married
son, his 18 year old son who is unemployed,
his 12 and 15 year old sons who
have left school and not employed and his 12 year old daughter who has left
school with
no work. He houses also his 9 year old daughter who attends
college de Santo. He pays vt3,000 per term. Mr Toa submitted that
the
incident happened as a result of the Defendant's wife abusing him in public
which amounted to some provocation. He
told the court that after the
incident, the Defendant took his wife to hospital. At the time when the wife
was receiving
treatment the Defendant did everything at home for his wife
and children.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The Defendanttted freely
and cooperated with the police. He is truly sorry for his actions. In
n
November 1997 he killed
a bullock value at 5,000vt and reconciled with his
wife and her relatives. He bought local food-stuff at vt3,000. He made peace
with his wife and her relatives. The court was urged to consider these
factors in mitigating sentence.
Considerinse factors
particularly that there was some degree of provocation and the fact that that the
Defendant has made
peace in a customary way. I decided that the court should
be lenient. But that in my opinion the Defendant should be seriously
given
warning not to repeat his action.
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
For those reasons the Defendant
was fined vt5,000 to be paid on Friday 28gust 1998, failing which thch the
Defendant will
be imprisoned for 1 day for every vt50 remaining outstanding
until payment.
DATED at Luganville this 17th
day of August, 1998.
BY THE COURT
OLIVER A SAKSAK
Judge of the Supreme Court
