Question of Court
p. 77 · Read in the full issue
Sentences Raised in Fiji
Prom Our Own Correspondent
Suva, Feb. 26
THERE has been recent criticism of alleged discrepancies between sen tences imposed at various courts in Fiji.
A Fijian who stole a shirt from an other Fijian has been fined £lO, and a Fijian woman who stole two dresses from other Fijian women has been gaoled for six months. For breaking into a Fijian house at Wailoku and stealing three mats, another Fijian was sentenced to six months’ hard labour. The same penalty was imposed on a youth who stole goods valued at under £9, while a young Fijian who had bought part of the goods was given nine months’ hard labour for receiving; and, finally, an Indian shop keeper who had ultimately received the transferred goods (sewing-machine needles) was sentenced to 18 months’ hard labour. (The Indian had 12 pre vious convictions).
CONTRASTING with these sentences is the case of an Indian bus-driver who, in 1947, drove his bus while helplessly drunk, smashed a motor-car, killed a woman and seriously injured a man. Charged with manslaughter, he was sentenced in the Supreme Court to two years’ gaol. With the usual reduction for good behaviour, he was released after 18 months.
At Tavua this month a Fijian was sent to gaol for two years and seven months for damaging property, assaulting the police and escaping from custody. A fine of £5 was added for being under the influence of liquor.
Although this man had 13 previous convictions, it has been pointed out that “drunks and disorderlies” at Suva fre uqently assault the police and are treated with comparative leniency.
Another aspect of magistrates’ courts which has provoked a sharp protest re cently is the frequent employment of In dians as interpreters in cases involving Fijian defendants. Although it has not been claimed that this has involved mis carriages of justice, cases are known in which Indian interpreters, through ig norance of the differences between the official language of Bau and some of the dialects, have unintentionally given wrong interpretations.