Public Prosecutor v Ulas
SENTENCE
Introduction
1. The defendant comes before this Court today to be sentenced in relation to her conviction for four counts of Obtaining money by deception contrary to section 130 B of the Penal code.
2. On the 7th October 2025, she pleaded guilty to these charges, accepted the facts relating to them and was duly convicted on her pleas.
Facts
3. The defendant promised Ezekiel Maki that she would buy him a land cruiser if he gave her the money.
4. Between the 22nd November 2021 and the 4th December 2021, the victim Maki gave the defendant a total of VT 98,000 on four different occasions, after she promised him that she would use the money to buy the vehicle, and help pay the shipping and the vehicle fitness sticker.
5. Instead, the defendant applied the money the complainant gave her for her personal use.
Statutory Maximum Sentence
6. A conviction for the offence of obtaining money by deception contrary to section 130 B of the Penal Code attracts a sentence of 12 years imprisonment.
Sentencing purpose and Guideline
7. There are several principles that guide the Court when imposing a sentence on the offender. They include the proposition that the offender must be held accountable and must take responsibility for her action. Additionally, the offender’s action is the kind that is denounced by society, and that similar future acts by her and others must be deterred.
8. Specific and general deterrence have been regarded as particularly important principles in this type of offending.
9. The approach taken in the process of determining the appropriate sentence in this case follows the guidance that was given by the Court of Appeal in the case Philip v Public Prosecutor [2020] VUCA 40.
Aggravating Factors
10. The following circumstances constitute the aggravating factors in the present case:
a) The amount of money the offender obtained dishonestly was fairly substantial, and it seems highly unlikely that it will be repaid;
b) The same amount represented money that the victim had worked hard to save for himself and for his family;
c) The offender’s conduct involved a degree of planning.
Starting Point
11. In assessing the appropriate starting point, I have taken into account the statutory maximum sentence, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending.
12. I have considered the submissions of counsel as well as the authorities they have referred to, for the Court’s consideration. In their submissions, the prosecution has recommended a starting point of 18 months, whilst the defence has proposed a starting point of 12 months.
13. This Court has in a number of cases imposed starting points that range from 16 to 24 months. In Public Prosecutor v Laura [2021] VUSC 10 which involved a sum of VT 24,000, this Court imposed a starting point of 24 months. In another case Public Prosecutor v Katengor [2018] VUSC 218, a sum of VT 53,000 was obtained by deception. This Court imposed a starting point of 16 months.
14. Whilst the guidance in Apia v Public Prosecutor [2015] VUCA 30 was intended to assist the assessment of ultimate sentences, the principle which divided cases into three broad groups depending on the amount obtained applies equally in the exercise of ascertaining starting points. Consequently, where the present case involves a sum of VT 98,000 and falls into the first category, I will adopt a starting point of 20 months. The incidence of a prior conviction will not lead to an uplift. It will instead affect the assessment of the defendant’s character in the evaluation of personal and mitigation factors.
Guilty Plea
15. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charges when she was arraigned for the first time in this Court. As a result, this Court gives her a discount of 22% of her sentence from the starting point.
Mitigating and Personal Factors
16. The defendant is 41 years old and currently lives at Erakor village. She is married and has three children. Her pre-sentence report however indicates that she does not live with them. Her husband separated from her because of her continuing trouble with the law.
17. The defendant’s formal education ended at sixth grade in primary school, as financial difficulties prevented her from continuing. Her report however indicated that she has gained valuable skills in homecare, art and sewing whilst she was in prison between 2021 and 2023.
18. The defendant’s conviction in the present case is not the first one. This will be the fourth set of conviction’s according to her pre- sentence report. In January 8th 2021 she was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, on the 4th June 2022 to 9 months imprisonment for similar offences and on the 20th October 2023 to 3 years imprisonment for the same offence.
19. For these mitigating and personal factors, in particular her previous convictions, no further discount is given for good character.
End Sentence
20. After considering all these matters, I impose on the defendant an end sentence of 15.6 months imprisonment. I have considered how this period will be served and decline to invoke section 57 of the Criminal Procedure because of her character and the nature of her offending. The repetitive nature of her offending dictates that the suspension of her sentence is inappropriate. The defendant does not appear to have made any genuine attempt to lead a stable family life, one that is free from transgressions and infractions of the law. She will therefore serve the entire period of 15.6 months imprisonment immediately.
21. You have 14 days to appeal this sentence.
DATED at Port Vila this 24th April of April 2026
BY THE COURT
………………………………………….
Hon. Josaia Naigulevu
Justice