Public Prosecutor v Afi
SENTENCE
Introduction
1. The defendant comes to the Court today to be sentenced in relation to his conviction for one count of threatening language contrary to section 144A of the Penal Code, and one count of malicious damage to property contrary to section 133 of the Penal Code.
2. On the 25 June 2026 he entered pleas of guilty to the two counts, accepted the summary of facts relating to them, and was duly convicted.
Facts
3. On the morning of 15 June 2025, the complainants, the late Oliv Nalai and the Defendant’s younger brother Isaac were at home when they heard the defendant making threatening statements. The defendant was in the kitchen at the time. He said: “Fuck ol sting kok ufala out long haos blong mi hariap befo mi cucut ufala long naef.”
4. Shortly after the defendant began breaking China crookery that belonged to the family. His action caused the complainants to fear for their safely.
Statutory maximum sentence
5. A conviction for the two offences will attract the following sentences.
a) Threatening language- 3 years’ imprisonment;
b) Malicious damage to property a term of 1 year imprisonment or a fine of VT5000 or both a fine and imprisonment.
Sentencing purpose and guideline
6. There are several principles that guide the Court when imposing a sentence on the defendant. They include the proposition that the defendant must be held accountable and must take responsibility for his or her actions. Additionally, the offending conduct is the kind that is denounced by society, and that similar actions by any offender must be deterred.
7. However, the law also recognizes that ample opportunity must be given to a defendant to rehabilitate and reintegrate.
8. The approach taken in the process of determining the appropriate sentence in this case follows the guidance that was provided by the Court of Appeal in its decision in Philip v Public Prosecutor [2020] VUCA 40.
Aggravating Factors
9. The following circumstances constitute the aggravating factors in the present case.
a) Breach of trust- the first complainant Oliv Nalau, who has been looking after the Defendant’s family following the passing of his father and his mother’s illness, expected and deserved love and security from the defendant;
b) The violent action of the defendant engendered fear within the family,
c) There is no likelihood that the defendant will be able to replace the broken property.
d) The action of the defendant appears to have been, on the evidence, completely unprovoked.
e) The threat involved the potential use of a lethal weapon.
Starting Point
10. In assessing the appropriate starting point, I have taken into account the statutory maximum sentence of the offence, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending.
11. I have considered the submissions of counsel, as well as the authorities they have referred to for the Court’s consideration. The prosecuting counsel recommends a starting point ranging between 24 to 26 months for threatening language and 11 to 12 months for the offence of malicious damage to property. The two cases that counsel refers to involved damage to property that were more extensive and therefore of limited assistance; the other two cases dealing with the offence of threatening language were of some help. The defence counsel does not propose a starting point. I adopt a starting point of 20 months.
Guilty Pleas
12. The defendant did not enter a plea of guilt at the earliest opportunity. His earlier plea was subsequently withdrawn by an application made in December 2025.
13. He is accordingly entitled to a discount of 20% from the starting point.
Mitigating and Personal factors
14. There are no personal factors in his favour. The pre-sentence report does not provide a positive outlook about the defendant, particularly in relation to his relationship with his family and the community. There has been no reconciliation with the complainants. He has not undertaken community work in the past.
15. The only mitigating factor is that he has no prior conviction.
16. This mitigating factor reduces his sentence by 1 month.
End Sentence
17. Kaltavi Afi, I impose on you an end sentence of 16 months imprisonment. From that sentence, a period of 14 months on account of the time spent in custody since the 18 June 2026 is deducted from that term. That leaves a balance of two months.
18. It is important to note that this matter could have been finalized in December 2025, which may have resulted in your earlier release from custody. The additional processes were unhelpful.
19. In the circumstances, and on account of the full added value of the 14 months incarceration, I have decided to release you immediately. However, you will be under a Supervision Order for a period of 3 months. This is primarily to enable you to access rehabilitation programs and medical care that the Correctional Service is able to provide during that time.
20. You have 14 days to appeal your sentence.
DATED at Port Vila this 10th day of September 2026
BY THE COURT
……………………………….
Hon. Josaia Naigulevu
Justice