| Press Releases |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Press Release - July, 2001
Mandatory Sentences
To impose a mandatory custodial sentence on a mother of two young children who was also a first offender would be a gross violation of the constitutional independence of the courts in Fiji and a violation of section 25 (1) of the 1997 Constitution which protected people from severe treatment or punishment, the Fiji Human Rights Commission told the Lautoka High Court today.
The Director of the Commission, Dr Shaista Shameem was appearing as amicus curiae in the High Court appeal case involving a woman who had been charged with possession of Indian hemp.
The submission from the Commission was that the mandatory goal sentence contained in the Dangerous Drugs Decree under which the woman was charged violated the discretionary duty of the court to look at the circumstances of each case when passing sentence. The court could examine the Decree to see whether it violated the Decree itself violated the Constitutional provisions on human rights and the independence and role of the judiciary.
In its submission the Commission also referred to the Convention of the Rights of the Child which protects the interests of children. Fiji has ratified the Convention. The Commission said that for a court to send a mother of young children to prison for three months instead of giving her alternative punishment or proposing rehabilitation could breach the Rights of the Child Convention because the children would suffer through no fault of their own.
This is the second time this week that the Human Rights Commission has been requested by the Courts to make Submissions on whether Mandatory sentences breached human rights.