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

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Nauru >> 1980 >> [1980] NRSC 12

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

Kephas v Republic [1980] NRSC 12; [1969-1982] NLR (D) 82 (20 February 1980)

[1969-1982] NLR (D) 82

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

Criminal Appeal No 14 of 1979

KELVIN INIA KEPHAS

v

THE REPUBLIC OF NAURU

20th February, 1980.

Sentence - driving while disqualified by order of a Court - imprisonment necessary unless the circumstances are exceptional.

Appeal against a sentence of three months' imprisonment for driving a motor vehicle while disqualified from doing so. The appellant had been disqualified upon conviction for driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor. On the day of the offence his wife had gone to visit relatives about a mile from his home. He drove his motor car from his home to the relatives' home in order to take his child to its mother.

Held: Flouting of disqualification orders must normally be punished by imprisonment. Only in exceptional circumstances - which, in the circumstances of Nauru it is difficult to envisage - is any sentence other than imprisonment appropriate.

Appeal dismissed.

R. Kun for the appellant
P.A. Thorpe for the respondent

Thompson CJ:

Parliament has made the imposition of a period of disqualification from driving mandatory when a person is convicted of driving under the influence of liquor. The Courts must ensure that such disqualification is effective or the law will be held in disrepute. The learned magistrate was, therefore, correct in saying that, except where special reasons exist for not doing so, the Courts must impose sentences of imprisonment on those who drive while disqualified. He was also right in saying that in Nauru such special reason can rarely, if ever, exist, because of the short distances and ample availability of transport. Certainly in this case no special reason existed. If the appellant had to take the child to its mother, the whole journey being within Buada, he could have walked, as his forebears would have done. In view of the appellant’s training and experience, it is most unlikely that he will lose his job; no replacement, apparently, is available for him.

The sentence imposed by the learned magistrate is not wrong in principle. When regard is had to the road toll in Nauru resulting from persons driving under the influence of liquor, effective disqualification is needed to deter persons from driving while intoxicated. In turn sentences adequate to deter those disqualified from ignoring the disqualification are required to order to make the disqualification effective. The sentence of three months' imprisonment is, for that reason, not harsh or excessive.

The appeal is dismissed.