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

Public Prosecutor v Weba [2005] VUSC 136; CRC 064 2005 (7 December 2005)

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

Criminal Case No. 64 of 2005

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

VS.

CRAYTON WEBA

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak
Mrs Anita Vinabit – Clerk

Mr Lent Tevi for the Public Prosecutor
Mr Jacob Kausiama for the Accused.

7th December 2005

SENTENCE

Crayton Weba is charged with Intentional Assault Causing Death under section 107(d) of the Penal Code Act [Cap. 135].

On 19^th January 2005 at Vetiboso village on Vanua Lava Island in the Torba Province the accused assaulted his sister. He hit her with his hand on the head, then five times on her shoulder causing her to fall to the ground. Whilst on the ground the accused kicked the deceased twice on the ribs. As a result she died.

He pleads guilty to the charge. On the basis of his plea the Court enters a conviction against the accused.

In sentencing Crayton Weba, I consider the following aggravating factors which contribute to the seriousness of the case:-

(a) That he hit his sister on the head with his fist.

(b) Then again five times on her shoulder with his fist.

(c) Then he kicked her twice on the ribs while she was already helpless on the ground.

These principles are established in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Richard Ierogen Criminal Appeal Case No. 7 of 2002. The Court of Appeal assessed a sentence to be imposed in situations where a defendant uses his fist and legs to cause serious injuries to the body resulting in death to be around (4) to (7) years imprisonment.

In mitigation Mr Kausiama submits that the Court should treat this case on the lower side of the scale. He urges the Court to consider his guilty plea at the first available opportunity, his previous clean record and the customary settlement of two pigs and VT7,000 paid to the relatives of the deceased.

I agree with Mr Tevi that there are three aggravating factors making the case a serious one. I consider that the appropriate starting point is 4 years imprisonment. However I allow a 1/3 being credit of his early guilty plea and allow a further 1/3 being credit for the customary settlement under section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act [Cap. 136].

Speaking in months, 4 years is equivalent to 48 months less 1/3 reducing to 44 months. A further 1/3 which is 4 months deduction reducing to 40 months which is 3 years and 4 months.

The accused will therefore serve an imprisonment term of 3 years and 4 months in jail. This sentence began on 1^st December 2005 when he was remanded back in custody.

Dated at Luganville this 7^th day of December 2005.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge.