Public Prosecutor v Rocroc
SENTENCE
__________________________________________________________________________________
A. Introduction
1. This is the sentence of the Defendants Desai Rocroc, Bill Avock and Fernando Palo.
2. Defendant Desai Rocroc pleaded guilty and appears for sentence on the following offences:
a) Co-offender to theft, contrary to sections 32 and 125 of the Penal Code Act [CAP 135] (count 4);
b) Criminal Trespass, contrary to section 144 of the Penal Code Act (count 5)
c) Malicious damage to property, contrary to section 133 of the Penal Code Act (count 6);
d) Malicious damage to property, contrary to section 133 of the Penal Code Act (count 7);
e) Theft contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 8);
f) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 9);
g) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 10);
h) Escape lawful custody contrary to section 84 of the Penal Code Act (count 11)
i) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 12);
j) Unlawful Entry into dwelling house, contrary to section 143 of the Penal Code Act (count 13);
k) Criminal Trespass, contrary to section 144 of the Penal Code Act (count 14);
l) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 15).
3. Defendant Bill Avock pleaded guilty and appears for sentence on the following offences:
a) Unlawful entry, contrary to section 143 of the Penal Code Act (count 1)
b) Criminal Trespass, contrary to section 144 of the Penal Code Act (count 2);
c) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 3);
d) Criminal Trespass, contrary to section 144 of the Penal Code Act (count 5);
e) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 8);
f) Criminal Trespass, contrary to section 144 of the Penal Code Act (count 14);
g) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 15).
4. Defendant Fernando Palo pleaded guilty and appears for sentence on the following offences:
a) Unlawful Entry, contrary to section 143 of the Penal Code Act (count 1);
b) Criminal Trespass, contrary to section 144 of the Penal Code Act (count 2);
c) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 3);
d) Criminal Trespass, contrary to section 144 of the Penal Code Act (count 5);
e) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 8);
f) Criminal Trespass, contrary to section 144 of the Penal Code Act (count 14);
g) Theft, contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code Act (count 15).
B. Facts
5. Desai Rocroc, you are from Malekula and Santo. You reside at Side River, Lugaville, Santo. You are 25 years old.
6. Bill Avock, you are from Santo Island and you reside at Sarakata, Luganville, Santo at the opposite Sarakata SDA church. You are 14 years old.
7. Fernando Palo, you are from Port-Orly, Santo. You reside at Side River, Luganville, Santo Island. You are 15 years old.
8. There are 7 complainants who lodged complaints against the three of you.
9. The names of the complainants and their complaints are as set out in each count with the defendant or defendants involved in each count.
9A. The Facts in relation to counts 1,2,3 and 4 against Desai Rocroc, Fernando Palo and Bill Avock are as follow: -
a) Rowena Joy Pope is a New Zealand citizen who lives at Paradise Views at Fresh Wind, Luganville, Santo Island. Joy pope complained that: -
b) Sometimes between 14 and 16 November 2025 at Paradise Views at Fresh Wind area, Fernando Palo and Bill Avok, you both unlawfully entered into the dwelling house of Rowena Pope with the intention to commit a criminal offence (count 1).
c) On the same day (between 14 and 16 November 2025) you both trespassed into her yard to intimidate her as you took away her properties without her permission (count 2).
d) When you both entered her house, you both took away lots of her personal properties like 1 bush knife, box of VB, some medicines and Medical Kit, power bank of white colour, cigarettes and lighter, underwater camera (olympus red) multi tool pocket knife, a set of screw driver of orange colour, a blue torch, a grey laptop model HP with its laptop bag, the mouse, the black external drive and 4 flash drives (count 3).
e) You both removed those properties without her permission.
f) Out of these properties, police recovered the laptop with 4 flash drives, 1 bush knife, the red underwater camera, the multi tool of grey colour and the black external drive.
g) Then you both took those properties and hid them in an empty yard near the complainant’s house. You both informed Desai Rocroc that night, and he followed both of you to that yard and took these properties (count 4).
9B. The facts in relation to counts 5,6,7 and 8 against Desai Rocroc, Fernando Palo and Bill Avock: -
a) Matt Paul is the second complainant. He is an Australian citizen. His properties were at Shell company area.
b) Sometime between 13 November 2025, you all three trespasses into Matt Paul’s yard with the intention to intimidate and annoy him with his properties (count 5).
c) On 13 November 2025, Desai Rocroc, you have used a wire cutter and you cut and damaged the wire of the fence of Matt Paul, the cut was big enough so you all could get inside the yard. You all knew that the fence wire belonged to Matt Paul. (Count 6).
d) When you all three were inside Matt Paul’s yard, Desai Rocroc, you damaged the lock of the door of the tool shed of Matt Paul by using the wire cutter and damaged the lock of the Tool shed (count 7).
e) Desai Rocroc, you went inside and took away a chainsaw, box drill and 2 underwater spear guns of Matt Paul. The three of you took these properties away from Matt Paul’s house without his permission.
f) Desai Rocroc, you sold the 2 underwater spear guns and the electric drill to one Sako Giovanni and Sako Giovanni returned them to the police when he was informed that the three of you stole those properties (count 8).
9C. The facts in relation to count 9 against Desai Rocroc.
a) The complainant is Ricaella Molwaiang of Melsisi, Pentecost Island. She works at Natapoa Motel and she lives at Pump station.
b) Sometime on 12 June 2025, Desai Rocroc, you went to Natapoa Motel and stole 1 Samsung tablet with its charger of black colour.
c) The complainant found out that her properties were missing. She asked one of his in-laws (Serge). Serge told her that he saw you, Desai Rocroc there, and he thought that you went there to visit the complainant.
d) You took the tablet out from the Natapoa Motel.
e) Police have recovered the tablet and returned it back to the complainant.
f) In your statement to the police dated 27 June 2026, you admitted you stole the tablet (count 9).
9D. The facts in relation to count 10 against Desai Rocroc.
a) The complainant is Michelline Tanga of North Ambae. She lives at Side River, Luganville, Santo.
b) Sometime between 16 and 17 November 2025, Desai Rocroc, you went inside the house of Michelline Tanga and stole an orange chainsaw 372, black canon camera, 1 bag of dried roots of Kava, 1 green DCA grinder and some T-shirts 41,000Vt cash (of 5,000 and Vt.1000 cash notes), a cash box containing 408,000 Vatu and 6 tins of money of Vt. 20,000.
c) You sold the bag of Kava to Simeon Aru. Simeon Aru has been notified, he went and they identified the bag of Kava and they confirmed that Desai Rocroc, you sold it to them. They weighed that bag of Kava and paid it 46,800 Vt and they gave that money to you, Desai Rocroc.
d) You have also sold the chainsaw to Ramson Pipite at 50,000 Vt. Ramson Pipite did not have enough money at that time, and he told you that he had only 20,000 Vatu, and as you were in hurry at the time, you accepted that Ramson Pipite paid the chainsaw with only Vt. 20,000 and you left. Thereafter, Ramson Pipite found out that Desai Rocroc, you have stolen the chainsaw, so Ramson Pipite returned the chainsaw back to the complainant.
e) DesaI Rocroc, you admitted the offences in your statement to the police dated 27 November 2025 (count 10).
9E. The facts in relation to count 11 against Desai Rocroc.
a) The complainant is Stephen Vari. He is a police officer of Sanma Patrol station. He is from Tanna Island. He lives at the Barrick, VMF Camp, Luganville, Santo.
b) Sometime on 27th June 2025, Desai Rocroc, you called on Stephen Vari, the Cell Manager, as you want to use the Toilet. He had release you from the cell to go and use the toilet facilities. When you arrived at the toilet, you asked for the toilet paper. The officer went to get the toilet paper for you. When the officer returned. You were no longer there. The officer looked outside and saw you were running outside on the road crossing the public road, and you were escaping the lawful custody.
c) The officer ran after you. He fell on the ground. He was calling you to stop running. You did not want to return to custody. The other officers ran after you and caught you, and handcuffed you. You were escorted back to the cell (count 11).
9F. The facts in relation to count 12 against Desai Rocroc.
a) The complainant is Edward Tarigole. He is from West Ambae and lives at Banban area.
b) Sometime on 12 May 2025 at Banban Big Sea area, Santo Island, Desai Rocroc, you have unlawfully entered into the dwelling house of Edward Tarigole and stole a pistol torch and a black bag (count 12).
9G. The facts in relation to counts 13,14, and 15 against Desai Rocroc, Fernando Palo and Bill Avock.
a) The complainant is Graham Mack. He is an Australian citizen, and he lives at Red Corner area, Luganville, Santo.
b) Sometime on 10 November 2025, at Red Corner area, Desai Rocroc, you unlawfully entered into the dwelling house of Graham Mack through the windows with the intention to commit a criminal offence such as theft.
c) You took away 2 shopping bags and one black handbag. The shopping bag contained clothes and two small speakers of blue and grey colours (count 13).
d) The police recovered some of the clothes that, Desai Rocroc, you stole at Graham Mack’s house and returned them back to the complainant.
e) On the same date of 10 November 2025, you all three (3) (Desai Rocroc, Fernando Palo and Bill Avock), trespassed into the yard of Graham Mack when you, Desai Rocroc, you used a wire cutter and you cut the fence wire and you all went inside the yard with the intention to intimidate him inside his yard; and while Fernando Palo and Bill Avock waited and watched while Desai Rocroc was inside the house (count 14).
f) The property items stolen from Graham Mack’s house by Desai Rocroc, the 3 of you, took these property items, and walked away with these to Side River. Fernando Palo and Bill Avock, you both carried the 2 bags of clothes and put them and Desai Rocroc’s wife in the house (count 15).
C. Sentence start point
10. I assess the sentence start point by considering the following:
a) The maximum sentence that is available in law;
b) The mitigating and aggravating features of the offending;
c) Any Court of Appeal guideline judgement on the sentencing (if any); and
d) Any Supreme Court judgement on comparative basis.
11. In this case, there are seven (7) different complainants in seven different complaints with similar type offences in most of the charges, so, the maximum sentences available are as follow:
- Unlawful Entry into Dwelling House – 20 years imprisonment;
- Criminal Trespass – 1 year imprisonment;
- Theft – 12 years imprisonment;
- Co-offender to Theft – 12 years imprisonment
- Malicious Damage to Property – 1 year imprisonment; and
- Escape from Lawful Custody – 5 years imprisonment.
12. In respect to each of the 15 counts, there are no mitigating factors to the offending, but the following aggravating factors exist in each count or joint / group counts:
a) Counts 1,2,3 and 4 of the offending of Defendants Fernando Palo, Bill Avock and Desai Rocroc (against the complainant Rowena Joy Pope):
i. There are some degrees of planning and pre-meditation in the offending of unlawful entry, criminal trespass, theft and co-offending to theft. The defendants had knowledge that the owner of the property is not at home so, they entered her property.
ii. There are significant losses suffered by the victim.
iii. The offending occurred at night time when no one was around.
iv. There is repetition of the offending.
v. There is a joint criminal enterprise as the defendants joined together to commit the offences.
vi. There is no prospect of reparation.
b) Counts 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the offending of defendants Desai Rocroc, Fernando Palo and Bill Avock (against the complainant Matt Paul):
i. There are some degrees of planning and pre-meditation in the offending of criminal trespass, malicious damage to property and theft.
ii. Defendant Desai Rocroc caused financial loss to the complainant when he damaged the complainant’s wire fence and his garage lock.
iii. The offending occurred when there was no one at home.
iv. The offending is repeated.
v. There is a joint criminal enterprise as the defendants joined together to commit the offences.
vi. There is no prospect of reparation.
vii. Not all items taken were recovered.
c) Count 9 of the offending of the defendant Desai Rocroc (against the complainant Ricaella Molwaiang):
i. The offending of theft committed by defendant Rocroc against the complainant was pre-meditated and planned.
ii. Loss was caused to the complainant as the result of the theft.
iii. The offending occurred at the motel and defendant Rocroc was not a stall nor a guest in that motel.
d) Count 10 of the offending of the defendant Desai Rocroc (against the complainant Michelline Tanga):
i. The offending of the theft was pre-meditated and planned. There was no one in the house at the time of offending.
ii. Defendant Rocroc caused loss of property and financial loss towards the complainant.
iii. The cash amount stolen was around Vt 474,000.
e) Count 11 of the offending of the defendant Desai Rocroc (against the complainant Stephen Vari):
i. The escape by Desai Rocroc was pre-meditated and planned.
ii. There is a breach of trust as the defendant Rocroc puts himself in a position where the officers will no longer trust him as a defendant who can comply with police processes.
f) Count 12 of the offending of the defendant Desai Rocroc (against the complainant Edward Tarigole):
i. The offending was planned and pre-meditated. The offending occurred when the complainant was not at home.
ii. The offending caused loss to property and financial loss also.
g) Counts 13, 14, and 15 of the offending of the defendants Desai Rocroc, Fernando Palo and Bill Avock (against the complainant Graham Mack):
i. The defendants’ offending was pre-meditated and planned. The offending occurred when there is no one in the yard, and in the house. Defendant Rocroc entered the dwelling house when the two (2) others watch.
ii. The offending caused property and financial loss.
iii. The offending was as the result of a joint criminal enterprise.
iv. There is no prospect of reparation.
v. Not all items stolen were recovered.
13. The Prosecution refers to the following cases: Iakuma -v- Public Prosecutor [2023] VUCA 43; Kalfau -v- Public Prosecutor [1990] VUCA9; and Public Prosecutor -v- Shem [2024] VUSC 118 as a comparable case to the present case.
14. The Prosecution submits that in Shem, 10 defendants were charged with unlawful entry into non-dwelling house, unlawful entry into dwelling house, theft, malicious damage to property, complicity to unlawful entry, attempted unlawful entry, offences of the same nature as the offences of this current case.
15. The defendants committed the offences against a total of 9 complainants and the Prosecution laid a total of 40 counts against the 10 defendants.
16. The Prosecution wishes to rely on the sentences that the Court in that case imposed but in particular on 2 defendants Mr. Jean Yves Shem, and Mr. Michel Asial. The Court sentenced them as follows:
a) For the defendant Shem – He was involved in 8 different premises. He committed the offence of unlawful entry into a dwelling house, and 5 non-residential properties. He maliciously damaged over Vt 1,000,000 belonging to another person and stole cash and items; and only 1 laptop was returned. All the other items were never recovered. He was sentenced to 6 years and 8 months imprisonment for the offence of unlawful entry to dwelling house, 6 years for the offence of theft, 5 years 6 months for the unlawful entry into non-dwelling house, complicity to unlawful entry of a non-dwelling house 3 years imprisonment, malicious damage to property 1 year, all to be served concurrently commencing from 14 June 2023 when defendant Shem was first remanded. The Court did not suspend Shem’s end sentence as there are no exceptional circumstances warranting suspension. An immediate custodial sentence was imposed.
b) Defendant Asial was charged with 4 charges including complicity to theft, accessory after the fact, complicity to unlawful entry to non-residential building. He was 19 years old during the time of his offending. The charges in his case are slightly different than the one in this current case, however, they involved unlawful entry into non-dwelling house and theft. The Prosecution relied particularly on his case given the young offenders in this current matter, Fernando Palo and Bill Avock. The Court in that matter dealt with defendant Asial as follows given his age of 19 years during the time of his offending. The Court sentenced him to an end sentence of 1 year imprisonment and complicity to theft, accessory after the fact 1 year imprisonment and complicity to unlawful entry to non-dwelling house 1 year and 4 months imprisonment. The Court relied on Heromanley -v- PP [2010] VUCA 25 to suspend his sentence for a period of 2 years. The Court stated that because he has clean record, youth, immaturity he has a prospect to rehabilitate. The Court further imposed 12 months supervision and for him to undertake 150 hours Community Work.
17. The Prosecution refers further to PP -v- Micah Jonah criminal case No. 24/3353, 24/1654, 24/1655, and 24/1656. In these cases, the defendant offended against 4 separate victims and pleaded guilty to 8 charges. The charges laid against him were unlawful entry into dwelling house, theft, unlawful entry into non-dwelling house. The Court set a starting point of 6 years imprisonment, relying on the Court of Appeal case of Rony -v- PP [2017] VUCA 23 which stated that 7 years is the appropriate sentence start point. In Rony case, the Defendant was sentenced in relation to 5 charges of unlawful entry into dwelling house and 5 charges of theft. The Court of Appeal stated the 7 years start point set by the judge in the lower Court is appropriate. In Micah case above, the Court set a starting point of 6 years imprisonment and after considering all factors reached an end sentence of 2 years 11 months. The Court did not suspend the sentence of imprisonment. The sentence took effect from 20 August 2024 from the date of which he was first remanded.
18. In the present case, the Prosecution submits the defendant Desai Rocroc is charged with 12 charges altogether which includes co-offending to theft, criminal trespass, malicious damage to property, theft, unlawful entry into dwelling house, unlawful entry into non-dwelling house and escape from lawful custody. The Defendant Desai Rocroc is currently imprisoned for the offence of intentional assault causing permanent injury on 29th May 2026 for a term of 19 months imprisonment.
19. He offended against a total of 7 different complainants in this current matter. He is around 25 years old. He is the master mind of all the burglary offending against the 7 different victims. The other 2 defendants are of tender ages of 14 years and 15 years of age.
20. The Prosecution submits that the appropriate global sentence start point for Mr. Desai Rocroc’s offending is 6 years imprisonment as set by the Courts in Rony and Jonah cases above.
21. The defence Counsel (Mrs. Manuariki) submits for a sentence start point of 3 years imprisonment.
22. I note that though the defendants are jointly charged in a number of charges, there are also a good number of charges where defendant Desai Rocroc individually committed the offences. In the circumstances of the present case, I consider and treat defendant Desai Rocroc as the master mind of all the burglary offences and the leading offender in these criminal joint enterprises committed, charged and dealt with in the current case. I shall deal with him as such in this sentence. I also consider and deal with the offence of unlawful entry into a dwelling house as the leading offence.
23. I adopt a global sentence start point of 6 years imprisonment for unlawful entry into dwelling house for defendant Desai Rocroc; that sentence is also imposed on Desai Rocroc for the offences of theft and co-offending to theft to be served concurrently. I also impose a sentence of 3 years imprisonment on Desai Rocroc for the offence of escaping lawful custody and 10 months imprisonment for the offences of criminal trespass and malicious damage to property concurrently to each other.
24. The sentences of 3 years imprisonment and 10 months imprisonment shall be served concurrently to the head sentence of 6 years imprisonment by Desai Rocroc. Hence, the global sentence start point for Desai Rocroc is 6 years imprisonment.
D. Personal Factors and End Sentence – Desai Rocroc
25. Desai Rocroc, you are from Hog Harbour village in Santo. You live in a defacto relationship with Ms. Lilian David. You have three (3) young children. Your eldest son is in class two (2) at Kamewa Primary school. Your second child is two (2) years old, and your youngest child is seven (7) months old. You are currently 25 years. You committed these offences at the age of 24.
26. You were employed by Wong Sze Sing, where you managed the cattle farm for almost six (6) years and you sustained your family through your fortnightly wages. You have a positive relationship with your family, chief and community.
27. You pleaded guilty to the offences in the present case at the first opportunity given to you by the authorities. I deduct one Third of sentence start point (of 6 years imprisonment) to reflect on your early guilty pleas (24 months).
28. You told the writer of the pre-sentence report that you have performed custom compensation or reconciliation ceremony with each of the complainants. However, these assertions of yours are not true, as the complainants or their representatives informed the writer of the report that there was no custom compensation or reconciliation ceremony or payment made. Some of these complainants do not want any custom compensation or reconciliation with you or from you.
29. Your sentence is reduced to 48 months (4 years) imprisonment. This is your end sentence. I consider the circumstances of this case, the particular nature of the offences and your character as an offender under section 57 of the Penal Code Act [CAP. 135], I decline to suspend this sentence of imprisonment. This custodial sentence is necessary for the following reasons:
(a) first, to mark the gravity and seriousness of the offences in this case.
(b) second, to serve as a deterrence to you and others who will be tempted to commit similar offences in the future;
(c) third, to punish you for the offences in the circumstances of this case; and
(d) the last but not least reason is to protect people in their dwelling homes and their properties.
30. Desai Rocroc, you are currently serving a 19 months’ imprisonment term for the offence of intentional assault causing permanent injury. The offending occurred in the year 2023 upon a different complaint.
31. The Prosecution submits, and I agree with that submission, that a consecutive sentence is required and that your end sentence of 4 years imprisonment should be served consecutively to your sentence that was, handed down by the Court on 29th of May 2026, and that, it should be effective from the date you were arrested and remanded for the offending in this current case.
32. You were arrested, kept in the police cell No. 6 in Luganville, Santo, and were released on bail, on 26 June 2025 for the current offences.
33. You are ordered to serve your sentence of 4 years imprisonment consecutively to your sentence of 19 months you are currently serving. Your sentence of 4 years imprisonment will be deemed effective from 26 June 2025. This means that after you completed your current sentence of 19 months imprisonment, you shall serve your end sentence of 4 years imprisonment, which is deemed effective from 26 June 2025.
E. Sentencing considerations for Fernando Palo and Bill Avock
34. In respect to defendants Fernando Palo and Bill Avock, they are both youth of 16 years of age and 15 years of age respectfully. The Prosecution submits for a global sentence start point of 4 years imprisonment for each and both defendants. The defence Counsel (Ms. Taleo) submits that the appropriate sentence start point to impose is 2 – 3 years’ imprisonment based on the following case: Public Prosecutor -v- Antonio Jean Luk Bob [2024] VUSC 304, Public Prosecutor -v- Taserei [2018] VUSC 167, Public Prosecutor -v- Scott [2013] VUSC 270 and Public Prosecutor -v- Daniel [2024] VUSC 185. The Daniel case involved young offenders, the Court state that:
“The offending was serious. On the other hand, Mr. Pakoa is a first–time offender and is a student. He is a child as defined in the convention of the Rights of the child. Due to his age and immaturity, he must be considered to have good prospect of rehabilitation…”
35. The defence Counsel submits further that the Court adopt the same approach in Daniel, which is to order defendants Bill Avock and Fernando Palo to come up for sentence if called upon under section 56 of the Penal Code Act [CAP 135]. I agree and adopt that submission in the circumstances of this case.
F. Personal Factors – Bill Avock and Fernando Palo
36. Below are the personal factors for each of you:
37. Bill Avock
1. You are 16 years old. At the time of the offending, you were 15 years old.
2. You are a first – time offender with no criminal history.
3. You are a year 7 student at the Sarakata Christian school.
4. You are highly dependent on your parents for support.
5. You are remorseful and has learnt your lesson.
6. You apologize to this Honourable Court for your unlawful actions.
7. You cooperated well with the Police and made admissions in you caution interview. Your cooperation and early admissions have saved the peoples resources in bringing this matter to the finality.
8. You have good relationship with your family and community.
9. You pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. You are entitled to a 1/3 reduction.
10. Time in custody – 5 days in custody.
11. You are willing to apologize to the complainants if the opportunity is provided.
38. Fernando Palo
1. You are 15 years old. At the time of the offending, you were 14 years old.
2. You are a first – time offender with no criminal history.
3. You were a year 8 student at Sain Ann College last year, 2025.
4. You do not attend school at the moment but wishes to resume education after the completion of your case. You are dependent on your mother and grandparents for support.
5. You are remorseful and have learnt your lesson.
6. You apologize to this Honourable Court for your unlawful actions.
7. You cooperated well with the Police and made admissions in your caution interview. Your cooperation and early admissions have saved the people s’ resources in bringing this matter to a finality.
8. You have good relationship with your family and community.
9. You pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. You are entitled to a 1/3 reduction.
10. Time in custody – 5 days in custody.
11. You are willing to apologize to the complainants if the opportunity is provided.
39. In respect to each and both of you, the Court considers the following:
a) Your youth and immaturity;
b) You were pressured by defendant Desai Rocroc as your adult peer (person);
c) Your early guilty pleas;
d) Your first – time offenders;
e) Your early admissions and cooperation with the police;
f) Your remorsefulness;
g) Your good relationships with family and community;
h) Your willingness to reconcile and apologize; and
i) You are both students, willing to continue your studies.
j) You each have good prospect of rehabilitation.
40. Having regard to your respective circumstances, including the nature of the offences and your character as offenders, instead of passing sentence, the Court orders each of you, Bill Avock and Fernando Palo, to appear for sentence if called upon to do so within a period of 2 years from today’s date pursuant to section 56 (1) (3) of the Penal Code Act [CAP 135]. There will be no sentence imposed for the offences of unlawful entry into dwelling house, theft and criminal trespass on counts 1,2,3, 5,8,14 and 15 in respect to each and both of you (Bill Avock and Fernando Palo). If any of you does not re-offend in any way within the period of the 2 years, any of your will not be called upon for sentence for these offences. But, if any of you re-offends during the period of the 2 years, you will be called up for sentence for these offences, as well as for any other sentence that you receive.
41. Defendants Desai Rocroc, Bill Avock and Fernando Palo, you have each 14 days to appeal your respective sentence, if you are unsatisfied with it.
DATED at Port Vila this 1st day of July 2026.
BY THE COURT
Hon. Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek