[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Nauru

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Nauru >> 1974 >> [1974] NRSC 5

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Kabook v Republic [1974] NRSC 5; [1969-1982] NLR (D) 24 (1 October 1974)

[1969-1982] NLR (D) 24

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

Criminal Appeal 11 of 1974

PATRICK OBETA ALIAS KABOOK

v

THE REPUBLIC OF NAURU

1st October 1974

Sentence - fine should not be, imposed unless accused has means to pay it.

Appeal against sentence of two months' imprisonment, a fine of $200 and suspension of the appellant's driving licence for one year imposed upon his conviction for dangerous driving. The dangerous driving of which the appellant was convicted was of a very serious nature. He had no means apart from any wages he earned.

Held: Where a person whose only means of paying a fine are any wages he may earn is sent to prison, it is wrong in principle to impose a substantial fine in addition to the sentence of imprisonment .

A. Iwugia for the appellant
Mrs. M.L. Billeam for the respondent

Thompson CJ

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving of such a nature that clearly a deterrent sentence was required to be imposed by the District Court. It is a proper case for a sentence of imprisonment and a period of disqualification. However, it appears that he does not at present have the means to pay the fine of $200 imposed on him in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. Certainly Mrs. Billeam has not alleged that he has. Although he may get his job back on release from prison, she has said that that depends on his record as a worker up to date. She has not informed the Court what that record is and there must at least be a chance that the appellant will not be re-employed. It is wrong to impose a substantial fine unless a Court is satisfied that it is, or is at least likely to be, within the accused person’s capacity to pay it. In this case, nothing on the record of the proceedings of the District Court or said in this Court has satisfied me that the appellant will, or is likely to, be able to pay a fine as substantial as $200. I have considered whether to substitute lesser fine but there is no information available to this Court on which a proper figure could be arrived at; and I consider that the sentence of imprisonment should serve as a sufficient deterrent to the appellant.

The appeal is allowed to the extent that the part of the sentence relating to the payment of a fine of $200 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed in default of payment of that fine is set aside. The remaining part of the sentence i.e. the substantive sentence of imprisonment and the order suspending his driving licence for one year remain unaltered.