Public Prosecutor v Wilson

SENTENCE

1.    The four defendants appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to various charges arising from an incident in South Santo on 17 June 2026. 

2.    The charges are:

a.    Charge 2 - Malicious damage to property. Mr Bruce Wilson and Mr Andrew Wilson pleaded guilty to this charge. The maximum penalty is a fine of VT 5,000 or one year imprisonment or both. ^[1]

b.    Charge 3 - Intentional assault causing temporary injury. ^[2] Mr Juru Vijimoli pleaded guilty to this charge. The maximum penalty for the offence is 5 years imprisonment. 

c.    Charge 5 - Arson. ^[3] Mr Peter Wilson pleaded guilty to this charge. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment. 

The Facts

3.    The offending took place in South Santo on 17 June 2026. 

4.    When the victims arrived at their home, they saw a number of items of their property had been damaged. The damaged property included a bucket, saucepan, dish, plastic containers and pipes. The victims saw Peter Wilson, Andrew Wilson and Bruce Wilson and asked why they had damaged their property. The defendants told them it was because the father-in-law of one the victim’s had sworn at them.

5.    Then, Mr Vijimoli approached the male victim and hit him on the head with a branch, which the victim then blocked with his hands. 

6.    Later that day, Mr Peter Wilson returned to the victims’ house with matches and petrol. He set alight a house belonging to the victims situated on the property. The house burnt down destroying items inside the house.

Sentencing purposes/principles

7.    The sentences I impose must hold the defendants accountable and must denounce and deter their conduct. The sentences should ensure they take responsibility for their actions and help them to rehabilitate. They must also be generally consistent. 

Approach to sentence 

8.    Sentencing involves 2 separate steps; Jimmy Philip v Public Prosecutor [2020] VUCA 40, which applied Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296. 

Starting point

9.    The first step is to set a starting point for the offences, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending and with reference to the maximum penalty for the offences.  

Malicious damage to property - Bruce Wilson and Andrew Wilson

10.    The aggravating factors of the offending are:

a.    There are two offenders.

b.    Scale - a number of items were damaged.

c.    The offending was unprovoked.

d.    There was a degree of planning and premeditation. The offending involved retaliatory actions, because of a perceived slight. It is vigilante behaviour which is not tolerated in a civilized society. 

e.    Loss to the victims.

11.    There are no mitigating features of the offending itself. In his written submissions, Mr Tevi submits the defendants were provoked. He relies on Peter Wilson’s police statement. Mr Wilson does not face a charge of malicious damage to property and his statement is not admissible against the defendants who did plead guilty to that charge. The provocation is said to be the swearing and then damage to a shelter and items inside it. The swearing is referred to in the summary of facts, but the property damage is not. The defendants must be sentenced on the summary of facts, and not material outside the agreed facts. In any event, even if the victim’s father-in-law swore at the defendants, causing malicious damage to the victims’ personal items is disproportionate. As s 27 of the Penal Code says, for criminal responsibility to be diminished, provocation must be of such degree as to deprive a normal person of his self control. I do not accept that criminal responsibility is diminished for the reasons I have set out. The reality is that if the defendants were concerned about criminal behaviour, they should have gone to the police, and not taken matters into their own hands.

12.    The prosecutor submits that the starting point should be in the range of 6-7 months imprisonment. Mr Tevi submits that the end sentence should be a fine of VT 5000 or a suspended prison sentence.

13.    In setting the starting point, Public Prosecutor v Toto [2024] VUSC 9 provides assistance. Two of the defendants were sentenced for malicious damage. The starting point adopted for the malicious damage was 6 months imprisonment. One malicious damage charge involved a defendant breaking a door using an item to do so. The other malicious damage charge involved another defendant breaking cups, plates and containers in the kitchen of one of the victims. Given that the two defendants here damaged multiple items, then I consider that like, Toto, there should be a starting point on a stand-alone basis of 6 months imprisonment.

Intentional assault causing temporary injury - Juru Vijimoli

14.    The aggravating factors of the offending are:

a.    This was an attack to the head, the most vulnerable part of the human body.  

b.    The use of a makeshift weapon, a branch. 

c.    This was unprovoked violence.

d.    There was a degree of planning and premeditation. The offending involved retaliatory actions, because of a perceived slight. It is vigilante behaviour which is not tolerated in a civilized society.

e.    The harm caused to the victim. The fact of a temporary injury is part of the charge. However, this must have been a frightening incident.

15.    There are no mitigating features of the offending itself. In his written submissions, Mr Tevi submits the defendant was provoked because the victim approached him and others as they were working in their garden and argued with them regarding the disputed land issue. I do not accept that arguing amounts to provocation. There has to be an immediate unlawful act, and the reaction constituting the offence must not be disproportionate to the degree of provocation, as per s 27(1) of the Penal Code.  Firstly, arguing is not an unlawful act and secondly, Mr Vijimoli’s response was disproportionate. 

16.    The prosecutor submits there should be a starting point of 18 months – 2 years imprisonment. Mr Tevi submits the end sentence should be a suspended 12 month imprisonment sentence. To assist the court in setting the starting point, Mr Liu has helpfully cited two cases to assist with setting an appropriate starting point: Public Prosecutor v Kamisak [2025] VUSC 208 and Public Prosecutor v Beau [2017] VUSC 201. Both cases involve a one off incident of violence resulting in a charge of intentional assault causing temporary injury. 

17.    In Kamisak, two defendants assaulted the victim. Both defendants struck the victim to the head with a piece of wood, resulting in injury to the victim. The starting point for each defendant was 2 years imprisonment.  In Beau, one of the defendants assaulted the victim with a piece of wood to his back and head. The victim sustained injuries. The starting point was 2 years imprisonment. 

18.    In the present case, the assault was a one off, and there is no information at all about the victim’s injuries, so I am unable to assess the nature of any injuries. Comparative to Kamisak and Beau, the circumstances here are less serious, as there was one assailant, and there is no information as to the nature of the victim’s injuries, as I have noted. 

19.    The key aggravating factors are the use of a makeshift weapon, and the vigilante nature of Mr Vijimoli’s actions. Taking the aggravating factors into account, together with the cases I have referred to, I adopt a starting point of 18 months imprisonment. 

Arson - Peter Wilson

20.    The aggravating factors of the offending are:

a.    The offending was unprovoked.

b.    The offending was premeditated. Mr Wilson brought an accelerant, petrol, to ensure that the property did burn. The offending involved retaliatory actions, because of a perceived slight. It is vigilante behaviour which is not tolerated in a civilized society. 

c.    The scale of the loss to the victims. A house on the property was destroyed along with items inside the house. 

21.    There are no mitigating features of the offending itself. 

22.    The prosecutor submits that the starting point should be within the range of 3 -3 ½ years imprisonment. Mr Tevi submits the starting point should be 3 years imprisonment. To assist the court in setting the starting point, Mr Liu has helpfully cited three cases to assist with setting an appropriate starting point: Public Prosecutor v Bule [2026] VUSC 86, Public Prosecutor v Mele [2022] VUSC 60, and Public Prosecutor v Soulny [2024] VUSC 6. All three cases involved an arson charge.
 
23.    In Bule, the defendant went to a pastor’s house in the early hours of the morning and set fire to a curtain inside the house and left. The room where the fire started was badly damaged, and many household items were destroyed. The offending was described as being unprovoked and involved planning and premeditation. There was also a risk to any occupants present. The starting point was 4 years imprisonment. I consider the offending in the present case to be slightly less serious than Bule, as there is nothing to indicate there was any risk to any occupants. 

24.    In Mele and Soulny, bush kitchens were set on fire and burnt to the ground. The offending in both cases involved planning and premeditation. The starting point adopted in both cases was 3 years imprisonment.

25.    This was a concerning incident. Mr Wilson returned to the property with an accelerant and set the house on fire. The relevance of the accelerant is that it shows premeditation. It was unprovoked and premeditated. I put to one side Mr Tevi’s submission that the arson was provoked. That may be Mr Wilson’s perception, but setting fire to the victims’ house and burning it to the ground is a completely disproportionate response. The arson was a completely disproportionate response to being sworn at. Taking the aggravating factors into account, and the cases I have referred to, I adopt a starting point of 3 ½ years imprisonment.  

Step Two - guilty plea and personal factors

Guilty plea

26.    The defendants entered guilty pleas at the first reasonable opportunity. The sentences are reduced by 25 percent for this factor. The guilty pleas show acceptance of responsibility and saved the victims from having to give evidence. There was a saving of Court resources. However, the case against the defendants was very strong. 

Personal factors

27.    Bruce Wilson – Mr Bruce Wilson is aged 30 years and is from South Santo. He is a first offender. The presentence report notes that he is remorseful, although that need to be tempered by the fact that he justified his actions, explaining that his was driven to offend because the male victim had entered onto the land, and ruined their crops. As Mr Bruce Wilson is a first offender, the sentence is reduced by 5 percent. I decline to reduce the sentence for remorse as I do not think any expressed remorse is genuine, given the justification for the offending. Mr Wilson took matters into his own hands but should have reported the ruined crops to police. 

28.    Mr Wilson was remanded in police custody for 24 hours, which is the equivalent of a 2 day sentence. The sentence will be reduced by 2 days to reflect that factor. 

29.    Andrew Wilson - Mr Andrew Wilson is aged 26 years and is from South Santo. He is a first offender. He is married and has 2 young children. The presentence report notes that he is remorseful, although that need to be tempered by the fact that he justified his actions, explaining that the offending occurred because of a long running land dispute over a plantation in South Santo. Despite a decision in their favour, the male victim had trespassed onto their property and ruined crops. As Mr Andrew Wilson is a first offender, the sentence is reduced by 5 percent. I decline to reduce the sentence for remorse as I do not think any expressed remorse is genuine, given the justification for the offending. Mr Wilson took matters into his own hands but should have reported the trespass and ruined crops to police. 

30.    Mr Wilson was remanded in police custody for 24 hours, which is the equivalent of a 2 day sentence. The sentence will be reduced by 2 days to reflect that factor. 

31.    Juru Vijimoli- Mr Vijimoli is aged 42 years and is from South Santo. He is a first offender. He is married and has 4 children. The presentence report notes that he is remorseful, although that need to be tempered by the fact that he justified his actions, explaining that the offending occurred because the male victim swore at him. He also explained there was a long running land dispute between his family and the male victim. As Mr Vijimoli is a first offender, the sentence is reduced by 5 percent. I decline to reduce the sentence for remorse as I do not think any expressed remorse is genuine, given the justification for the offending. Mr Vijimoli took matters into his own hands. 

32.    Mr Vijimoli was remanded in police custody for 24 hours, which is the equivalent of a 2 day sentence. The sentence will be reduced by 2 days to reflect that factor. 

33.    Peter Wilson- Mr peter Wilson is aged 25 years and is from South Santo. He is a first offender. He is married and has 2 young children. The presentence report notes that he is deeply remorseful, although that need to be tempered by the fact that he justified his actions, explaining that the offending occurred because of a long running land dispute over a plantation in South Santo. Despite a decision in their favour, the male victim has repeatedly entered their property and ruined crops. As Mr Peter Wilson is a first offender, the sentence is reduced by 5 percent. I decline to reduce the sentence for remorse as I do not think any expressed remorse is genuine, given the justification for the offending. Mr Wilson took matters into his own hands but should have reported the trespass and ruined crops to police. 

34.    Mr Wilson was remanded in police custody for 24 hours, which is the equivalent of a 2 day sentence. The sentence will be reduced by 2 days to reflect that factor. 

End sentences 

35.    The end sentences for each defendant are as follows:

a.    Bruce Wilson and Andrew Wilson – the end sentence for both defendants is 3 months 3 weeks 5 days imprisonment. 

b.    Juru Vijimoli – the end sentence is 12 months 1 week 5 days imprisonment.

c.    Peter Wilson- the end sentence is 2 years 5 months 5 days imprisonment. 

Suspension of the sentences 

36.    Under s 57 of the Penal Code, I must have regard to the circumstances, the nature of the offending and the defendants’ characters. When exercising the discretion under s 57, the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Garae [2025] VUCA 37 ^[4]  affirmed the approach to the exercise of the discretion. A sentencing Judge is to take into account all aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to the discretion. This requires a balancing exercise of the factors against, and the factors, for, suspension. 

37.    Bruce Wilson, Andrew Wilson and Juru Vijimoli – There are factors which point away from suspension of the sentence, being the unprovoked nature of their actions, and that the victims were deliberately targeted either because he swore at them (Mr Vijimoli) or because of the land dispute and the damage to the family’s crops. However, pointing to suspension is that fact that the defendants are all first offenders, and I assess that suspension, alongside a community work sentence, can meet the need for accountability, denunciation and deterrence. Accordingly, I have decided to suspend their sentences. 

38.    Peter Wilson – In his written submissions, Mr Tevi acknowledged the inevitability of a sentence of imprisonment, and did not seek suspension. There are factors which point away from suspension of the sentence, being the unprovoked nature of Mr Wilson’s actions, and that the victims were deliberately targeted because of the land dispute and the damage to the family’s crops, and the serious nature of the offending. He took an accelerant to the victims’ property and set it alight. That shows premeditation. The house and what was in it were completely destroyed. Pointing towards suspension is that fact that Mr Wilson is a first offender. After weighing and balancing the factors for and against suspension, the seriousness of the offending, and the deliberate nature of the arson, mean that the sentence will not be suspended. Those factors outweigh the fact Mr Wilson is a first offender. Only a full-time custodial sentence will meet the need for accountability, denunciation and deterrence. Accordingly, I decline to suspend Mr Wilson’s sentence. 

Sentences 

39.    Bruce Wilson and Andrew Wilson are each sentenced to 3 months 3 weeks 5 days imprisonment. Each sentence is suspended for 12 months. The defendants are warned that if they are convicted of any offence in the next 12 months, they will be taken into custody and serve their sentences of imprisonment as well as the penalty for the further offending.

40.    The defendants are also sentenced to 50 hours community work.

41.    There is 14 days to appeal against the sentence. 

42.    Juru Vijimoli is sentenced to 12 months 1 week 5 days imprisonment. The sentence is suspended for 18 months. The defendant is warned that if he is convicted of any offence in the next 18 months, he will be taken into custody and serve his sentence of imprisonment as well as the penalty for the further offending.

43.    The defendant is also sentenced to 80 hours community work.

44.    There is 14 days to appeal against the sentence. 

45.    Peter Wilson is sentenced to 2 years 5 months 5 days imprisonment, to commence immediately. Because Mr Wilson was remanded in custody for a 24 hour period, s 50 of the Penal Code [CAP 135] is not applicable: Jack v Public Prosecutor [2024] VUCA 39.  

46.    There is 14 days to appeal against the sentence. 

DATED at Port Vila this 28th day of August 2026
BY THE COURT 

…………………………………………. 
Justice M A MacKenzie

[1] contrary to s 133 of the Penal Code [CAP 135]. Section 133 does not prescribe a penalty. Therefore, the maximum penalty is prescribed by s 36(3) of the Interpretation Act [CAP 132].
[2] contrary to s 107(b) of the Penal Code [CAP 135].
[3] contrary to s 134 of the Penal Code [CAP 135].
[4] At paragraph 28. See also Malau v Public Prosecutor [2021] VUCA 48.