![]() |
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
[Report an error]
[F.A.Q.]
Supreme Court of Vanuatu |
[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF
VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
Criminal Case No. 42 of 2005
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-v-
GABILOU WHITFORD
Coram: Justice H. Bulu
Counsels: Mr. Lent Tevi for
the State
Mr. Peter Bartels for the Defendant
Date of Hearing: 1
December 2006
Date of Decision: 3 August 2007
RESERVED JUDGMENT ON SENTENCING
Introduction
1. Defendant Gabilou Whitford you were charged with one count of
premeditated homicide contrary to section 106 (b) of the Penal Code Act [CAP.
135}. The particulars of the charge were that sometime on 25 May 2005 in the
area of Tebakor Christian School, in the night,
you had intended to kill Willy
Philemon.
2. You pleaded not guilty to the charge on 8th July 2005.
3. Trial was set down to commence at 8.30 a.m. on 17 October 2005 and to
run for 3 weeks. Due to overlap with another criminal trial,
the trial was
postponed to 13 March 2006 but the length of time was reduced to two weeks only.
4. On 13 March 2006, the Defence counsel applied and obtained an
adjournment on the basis that he was not ready to proceed with the
trial. Matter
was listed for call over on 15 March.
5. On 15 March 2006, the trial was
listed to commence on 21 August for one week only. These were vacated and new
trial dates were
set for 30 October for one week.
6. On 1st August 2006,
new trial dates were set again for the matter to commence on 27 November 2006
for one week.
7. On 27 November 2006, the Prosecution amended the charge
against you. The amended charge now reads:-
“Count 1
Statement blong wrong
Intentional Assault causing death – agensem section 107 (d) blong Penal Code Act [CAP. 135]
Particulars blong wrong
GABILOU WHITFORD, you blong Tongoa island mo stap liv long Port Vila, samtaem long 20 May 2005 long Tebakor area, you minim blong assaultem man ia Willie Philemon mekem sei kil hemi kassem hemi result long ded blong hem.”
8. Section
107 (d) provides as follows:-
“No person shall commit intentional assault on the body of another person. Penalty; (d) if the damage caused results in death, although the offender did not intend to cause such death, imprisonment for 10 years.”
9. You pleaded
guilty to the new charge on the same day (27 November 2006) at the first
opportunity given to you by the Court.
10. Sometime in April 2005, you
and the deceased performed a custom ceremony acknowledging the growing
relationship between the deceased
and your step daughter to restrain the two
seeing each other for a little while. After the ceremony the deceased and your
step daughter
continued to see each other, secretly, contrary to the agreement
made at the custom ceremony.
11. On the night of 20 May 2005, the
deceased and your step daughter met at the Tebakor Junior Secondary School. When
you realized
that your step daughter was not at home you went searching for her.
You found the deceased at the school and enquired about your
step daughter. The
deceased informed you, in fact deceived you, that he had not seen her. Later on
you found your step daughter with
the deceased and guessed that the deceased had
lied to you earlier. You became very angry and you had a fight but the deceased
had
the upper hand in that fight and you walked away shouting for help.
12. When you went looking for your step daughter you had a piece of wood
about a meter long in your possession.
13. The deceased and your step
daughter remained in the school a little while but on realizing that they were
being hunted, they made
their way across the road near the TVL depot and hid in
a bush near Job Esau’s yard. They were discovered however. Your step
daughter was taken away and the deceased was assaulted. You turned up and
assaulted the deceased on his head and body with a piece
of wood. The deceased
fell down under the blows and appeared to be dead. He was unconscious and some
men carried him down to the
road unconscious and waiting to be transported to
the hospital, you assaulted him again on his head with a piece of wood you were
holding.
14. At the hospital Dr. Richard Harris examined the deceased
and pronounced him dead. He was covered in blood from the injuries he
sustained
to his head. He had lost his front teeth, he had no respiratory effort, no
pulse, and his pupils fixed and dilated.
Aggravating
features
15. The Prosecution submitted that the aggravating
features are:-
(a) The Defendant had a piece of wood;
(b) The Defendant hit the victim with the piece of wood several times on his head, face and body; and
(c) As a result of the assault the victim died.
Mitigating
features
16. You agree with the facts. Your counsel submitted on
your behalf that this case must be distinguished from that of Malesu Criminal
Case No. 9 of 2001 in which it was held that in disputed cases the starting
point ranges from 8 – 10 years. This is not a disputed
case.
17. Counsel continued that you do not have prior criminal history.
Further you are:-
• 35 years old with two children of the first marriage;
• A first offender;
• Sorry for what you did; and
• You entered a guilty plea on the new charge at the first opportunity.
18. On Application by your counsel on your
behalf a pre-sentence report was ordered and produced to the Court.
Considerations
19. Mr.
Gabilou, this Court has heard from the Public Prosecutor and your defence
counsel as to what should be the appropriate sentence
in your case. You are a
man of 35 years of age or so. You are an adult who should know or be able to
understand what is right and
what is wrong.
20. The facts in this case,
are not disputed. They are summarized as follows. On 22 May 2005 you went
looking for your step daughter
armed with a piece of wood about 1 meter in
length. When you found your step daughter with the victim you assaulted him
because he
had lied about the girl’s whereabout earlier when you had
caught up with him. The victim overpowered you and you went away
calling for
help. Others answered your call and went looking for the deceased. Why were you
looking for him with the other men?
21. You have made your intentions
known to him already when you assaulted him, because he breached the arrangement
made that they
cease to see each other for a while, and secondly, in deceiving
you earlier that evening when he told you that he had not seen your
step
daughter.
22. When you caught up with him you joined the others to
assault the victim. You did not assault him with your bare hands but with
a
piece of wood you had with you. You repeatedly hit him on his head and body.
23. As a result of such blows he became unconscious and was taken to the
main road. Those who had taken him to the road were intending
on taking him to
the hospital for a medical check-up and treatment.
24. While he was
lying by the road unconscious you turned up and again hit him on his head with
the piece of wood you had in your
hand.
25. The aggravating features
are:-
(a) You went looking for him intent on causing him bodily harm. You carried a piece of wood with you.
(b) You had a fight with him. He overpowered you. You called for help while walking away from him.
(c) Other persons responded. You caught up with him, you hit him on the head (back and front) and generally on his body. And he became unconscious.
(d) While he was unconscious, not moving at all, lying by the road you turned up and applied several blows again to his head with a pieced of wood you had in your hand. You assaulted a man no longer able to defend himself.
26. What you did that night, in my view, went
beyond the concept of “teaching him a
lesson” for engaging in a relationship with your step daughter and
further for not telling you the truth that your step daughter was
with him on
the ill fated night.
27. You are fortunate that Prosecutions has decided
to withdraw the charge of premeditated homicide under section 106 (b) of the
Penal Code Act [CAP. 135]. What you did on that night is most serious indeed and
senseless. The deceased was already unconscious, and lying
by the road. He could
not defend himself. Yet you turned up and hit him several times on his head with
the wood.
Sentence
28. I
have considered the guideline judgment case of PP v. Joseph Malesu. It is not
relevant to this case as this is not a defended
case. However, the aggravating
features are such that the starting point, in my view, has to be 7 years. It is
increased to 10 years.
One third is taken off for your guilty plea. One month is
taken off for the other mitigating features. Another 2 years 2 months and
5 days
already served is taken off also.
29. Mr. Gabilou, I now sentence you to
an immediate custodial sentence for a term of 4 years 8 months and 3 weeks.
30. I have considered the pre-sentence report made on your character and
personal history by the Probation Officer dated 15 May 2007.
The report suggests
that the offence was committed out of frustration and anger because the victim
continued to have a relationship
with your daughter.
31. It continued
that you have shown remorse for the offending and willing to perform a custom
ceremony. During the time you have
spent in custody, you have shown a lot of
improvement in your behaviour. The report went on to recommend a community based
sentence
of supervision with a special condition to perform a custom ceremony
within 7 months to the relatives of the victim.
32. Section 58F and 58K
of the Penal Code Act [CAP. 135] are the relevant provisions I have been urged
to consider and apply to award you a community based sentence of supervision.
Such a sentence can be imposed if the sentence is for a period of not less than
6 months and not more than 2 years in custody. As
such, this sentencing option
cannot apply in your case as the custodial sentence imposed on you to day does
not fall within the period
prescribed by section 58F.
33. You may appeal
this decision within 14 days of today if you are not happy with it.
DATED at Port Vila, this 3rd day of
August, 2007.
H.
BULU
Judge.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback|
Report an error
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2007/82.html