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

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2004 >> [2004] VUSC 43

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

Public Prosecutor v George [2004] VUSC 43; Criminal Case 019 of 2004 (31 August 2004)

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

Criminal Case No. 19 of 2004

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

–v-

MELTEN GEORGE, WARREN BUE,
WHITE CROSS ABEL, SIMELY KALMARI,
FRED JOHN, MARK GEORGE,
KANAGIS KALTAPAU

Coram: Justice Treston

Ms. Wodak for Public Prosecutor
Mr. Stephens for Defendants

ORDERS

Each of the seven of you who are in Court today are charged with unlawful entry dating back to March 2000. The maximum penalty in relation to that charge is 10 years imprisonment. There are other charges of theft.

The incident involves a warehouse at Tagabe and the charges were set out in the charge sheet. Because of the nature of the offences if you had been charged later than 2000, you probably would have been appearing in the Magistrates' Court rather than the Supreme Court. Last time to your credit, each of you pleaded guilty to the charges and it is also to your credit that you have attended Court when you have been required to do so.

It was a submission, which has not been able to be verified, that three of you were acquitted by the Magistrate sometime ago. The three to whom I refer are Richard Kus, who is in Santo, Melten George and Warren Bue.

The Prosecution has now had the opportunity of considering this matter further and have submitted to me that the appropriate course that I should take is to discharge you all without conviction or sentence. In making that submission to me of course the Prosecutor does not take away from the seriousness of what was done. To enter any premises unlawfully and to take property is something that the Court and the community will not condone and because of the maximum penalty involved that sort of behaviour can very often justify imprisonment but there are some factors which mean that I probably should accept the submission made to me by the Prosecutor.

The first one, of course, is the fact that there has been what could only be called inexcusable delay in this matter, nearly four years. The second on is that despite what I have said about the serious nature of the offences and the offending, this was a matter which was perhaps towards the lower end of the scale of similar matters and, three there is the fact that there remains a shadow of doubt as to how three of you were dealt with by the Magistrate in the lower Court some years ago. Of course your lawyer very predictably does not make any submissions against what the Prosecution submits and in the circumstances that I have outlined that seems to be the appropriate course.

A discharge under Section 43 (1) is considered to be an acquittal so your record will remain intact as far as this matter is concerned so there will be no conviction entered against any of your names in this matter but as I have said I urge all of you to learn a lesson from this experience and not to behave in any sort of way that would lead you to come before the Courts again for any reason. Effectively you all have had a chance, so please take that chance and I certainly don't want to see you back before the Court again. In all the circumstances each of you is discharged without conviction or sentence. So you are convicted and discharged and you are all now free to go and that ends the matter.

Dated AT PORT VILA, this 31st day of August 2004

BY THE COURT

P. I. TRESTON
Judge