Public Prosecutor v Aru
SENTENCE
1. The three defendants appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges arising from an incident in Santo on 6 December 2025.
2. The charges are:
a. Charge 1 - Criminal Trespass. [1] All three defendants pleaded guilty to this charge. The maximum penalty is one year imprisonment or both.
b. Charge 2 - Intentional assault causing temporary injury. [2] Mr Alixon Aru and Mr Meres Bule pleaded guilty to this charge. The maximum penalty for the offence is 5 years imprisonment.
c. Charge 5 - Unlawful possession of cannabis. Mr Alixon Aru pleaded guilty to this charge. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding VT 100 million or both.
The Facts
3. The offending took place in Santo on 6 December 2025.
4. On 6 December 2025, the victim was at home, when the three defendants trespassed onto his property. They came into the victim’s yard and said to him “mifala i stoppem yu long road yu no stop from wanem” (We stopped you at the road. Why did you not stop?).
5. The victim was then assaulted by Mr Bule and Mr Aru. Mr Bule punched the victim to the face. Mr Aru came up behind the victim and punched his back side with a big stone which rendered the victim unconscious. The victim sustained injuries as a result of the assault. A medical report showed that the victim had fractures on his vertebrae, had difficulty mobilizing himself, and was bedridden.
6. On 15 January 2026 police searched Mr Aru. He was found in possession of 0.4 grams of cannabis.
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 offending, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending and with reference to the maximum penalty for the offences.
10. The aggravating factors of the offending are:
a. Criminal trespass (the 3 defendants)
i. The number of offenders - all three defendants trespassed onto the victim’s property. There is force in numbers.
ii. The offending was unprovoked.
iii. There was a degree of planning and premeditation. The offending involved retaliatory actions, because of a perceived slight.
b. Intentional assault causing temporary injury (Mr Aru and Mr Bule)
i. The victim was assaulted by two of the defendants.
ii. The offending took place at the victim’s yard where he was entitled to feel safe.
iii. Mr Bule struck the victim to the head.
iv. The victim was vulnerable. He was outnumbered and was defenceless when he was struck by Mr Aru because Mr Aru approached him from behind.
v. Mr Aru used a makeshift weapon, a rock, to strike the victim.
vi. The offending was unprovoked.
vii. There was a degree of planning and premeditation. The offending involved retaliatory actions, because of a perceived slight.
viii. Harm to the victim. The victim was rendered unconscious, and sustained injures, and likely was emotionally impacted.
11. There are no specific aggravating factors in relation to the cannabis charge. The quantity of cannabis is small and was for Mr Aru’s personal use.
12. There are no mitigating features of the offending itself.
13. The Court of Appeal has discussed concurrent and consecutive sentences in a number of cases including Kalfau v Public Prosecutor [1990] VUCA 9, Boesaleana v Public Prosecutor [2011] VUCA 33 and Apia v Public Prosecutor [2015] VUCA 30. There is a useful summary of these cases in Nampo v Public Prosecutor [2018] VUCA 43.
14. In Boesalana, the Court of Appeal said:
[6] There can be substantial debate as to the approaches which can be applied in sentencing. But it is essential that the Court does not become lost in formulae or arithmetic calculations but rather looks in a general and realistic way at the entire offending, assessing all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and then reaches a sentence which in its totality properly reflects the culpability which has been established.
15. I intend to adopt a global starting point to reflect the totality of the offending for the defendants Mr Aru and Mr Bule. There will be a standalone sentence for Mr Joseph, as he only faces one charge, criminal trespass.
16. I consider that Public Prosecutor v Toto [2024] VUSC 9 provides some assistance in setting a starting point for the intentional assault charge. The case involved 5 defendants, all police officers, who were charged with either intentional assault causing temporary injury or malicious damage to property. For the assault charge, the starting points ranged from 12 months to 2 years imprisonment, depending on the circumstances of the particular assault. There were other police officers present at the time of the assaults. One of the defendants, Mr Kalontas assaulted a victim by slapping him and punching him in the ribs. The starting point for that assault was 12 months imprisonment. Another defendant, Mr Toto, assaulted a different victim by hitting her to the head with a dry coconut leaf branch. The female victim sustained injuries to her head and face. The starting point for that assault was 18 months imprisonment.
17. The key aggravating factors are that the victim was struck to the head, the use of a makeshift weapon, that he was outnumbered, he was defenceless and was injured. I see no reason to distinguish between the two defendants in terms of culpability. Both assaulted the victim in different ways. Mr Bule struck the victim to the head, a vulnerable part of the body. Then Mr Aru struck the victim to the back with a makeshift weapon. With reference to Toto, the assaults here are slightly more serious than Mr Kaltonas’ assault and slightly less serious than Mr Toto’s assault. Taking the aggravating factors into account, together with Toto, I adopt a standalone starting point for each defendant of 16 months imprisonment.
18. In terms of the criminal trespass, Mr Liu cited Public Prosecutor v Hosea [2021] VUSC 145 to assist with setting a starting point for that charge. Hosea involved 8 defendants who were charged with unlawful assembly, criminal trespass and intentional assault causing temporary injury. They formed a plan to assault the victim, went to his property and did so. It was described as a group attack on a sole individual. The starting point adopted for the criminal trespass was 7 months imprisonment. On a standalone basis, a lesser starting point than 7 months is warranted here. The victim was outnumbered when the 3 defendants arrived at his property, but the group in Hosea was larger than in the present case. On a standalone basis, I would adopt a starting point of 5 months imprisonment for the criminal trespass charge.
19. For the possession of cannabis charge, Wetul v Public Prosecutor [2013] VUCA 26 is the guideline case for cultivation of cannabis. It also applies to possession of cannabis. The offending here is Wetul category one, as the quantity is minimal and for personal use. In accordance with Wetul category one, a community-based sentence would be the start and end point. The quantity of cannabis does not require a starting point of imprisonment.
20. Totality considerations apply for Mr Aru and Mr Bule. The sentence must be proportionate and reflect their actual culpability. Accordingly, I adopt a global starting point for Mr Aru and Mr Bule of 18 months imprisonment. That reflects their involvement overall in the trespass and assault.
21. I adopt a starting point of 5 months imprisonment for Mr Joseph (criminal trespass only)
Step Two - guilty plea and personal factors
Guilty plea
22. The defendants entered guilty pleas at the first reasonable opportunity. The sentences are reduced by 30 percent for this factor. The guilty pleas show acceptance of responsibility and saved the victim from having to give evidence. There was a saving of Court resources.
Personal factors
23. Alixon Aru – Mr Aru is aged 20 years and is from Stone Hill area, Santo. He is a first offender and is relatively young. It is well recognised there are age related neurological differences between young people and adults that may make young offenders more impulsive. [3] There has been a custom reconciliation process, and a custom payment, accepted by the victim. The payment was a pig, a mat and a fine of VT 200,000. As Mr Aru is a first offender, is relatively young and is remorseful, and has undertaken a custom reconciliation and given a custom payment (which must be taken into account) the sentence is reduced by 13 percent.
24. Mr Aru has been remanded in custody since 16 January 2026, a period of 7 months 9 days, which is the equivalent of a sentence of 14 months 18 days. Presentence detention must be taken into account, which I intend to do in imposing the end sentence.
25. Meres Bule - Mr Bule is aged 34 years and is from Pentecost. He now lives at Stone Hill area, 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, shifting the blame to the victim saying he took the opportunity to retaliate when the victim took a fighting posture. There has been a custom reconciliation process, and a custom payment, accepted by the victim. As Mr Bule is a first offender, has shown some remorse, and has undertaken a custom reconciliation and has given a custom payment (which must be taken into account) the sentence is reduced by 10 percent.
26. Simeon Joseph - Mr Joseph is aged 25 years and lives at Stone Hill area, Santo. He is a first offender. He has a de facto partner. The presentence report notes that he is deeply remorseful and will never reoffend. There has been a custom reconciliation process, and a custom payment, accepted by the victim. As Mr Joseph is a first offender, is genuinely remorseful, and has undertaken a custom reconciliation and has given a custom payment (which must be taken into account) the sentence is reduced by 12 percent.
End sentences
27. The end sentences for each defendant are as follows:
a. Alixon Aru – the end sentence is 10 months imprisonment.
b. Meres Bule – the end sentence is 10 ½ months imprisonment.
c. Simeon Joseph - the end sentence is 3 months imprisonment.
28. The different end sentences for Mr Aru and Mr Bule reflect their differing personal circumstances. While parity is an important sentencing principle, that does not mean that the end sentences for offending of similar culpability must be the same. Sentencing is an evaluative exercise. It must fit both the offence and the offender.
Suspension of the sentences
29. Under s 57 of the Penal Code, I must have regard to the circumstances, the nature of the offending and the character of the defendants. 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.
30. Alixon Aru – I do not intend to consider suspension of the sentence. That is because Mr Aru has already served longer in custody than the end sentence. It would be disproportionate then to suspend the prison sentence. I intend to back date the sentence to start when he went into custody which means Mr Aru will be released immediately. The punitive aspect of sentencing has been met. I will however impose a sentence of supervision to assist in Mr Aru’s rehabilitation, as I assess there are good prospects of rehabilitation given his relative youth and remorse.
31. Meres Bule – There are factors which point away from suspension of the sentence, being the unprovoked nature of Mr Bule’s actions, and that he trespassed and then struck the victim to the head. However, pointing to suspension is that fact that Mr Bule is a first offender, has undergone a custom reconciliation and made a custom payment. I assess that suspension, alongside a sentence of supervision, can meet the need for accountability, denunciation and deterrence. Such a sentence will also assist in Mr Bule’s rehabilitation. Accordingly, I have decided to suspend the sentence for a period of 16 months.
32. Simeon Joseph - Mr Joseph is much less culpable than either Mr Aru or Mr Bule, as he was not involved in the assault. His limited role, that he is a first offender, is genuinely remorseful, and has taken part in a custom reconciliation and made a custom payment, all point towards suspension of the sentence. I assess that suspension can meet the need for accountability, denunciation and deterrence. The sentence will be suspended for a period of 6 months. I intend to also impose a sentence of supervision to assist Mr Joseph in his rehabilitation. A community work sentence is unnecessary as the punitive aspect of sentence is met by suspension of the sentence.
Sentences
33. I impose the following sentences:
a. Alixon Aru – Mr Aru is sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, back dated to commence on 16 January 2026. Given the time he already served in custody, he is to be released immediately. Mr Aru is also sentenced to 6 months supervision with special conditions to undertake anger management, alcohol and drug awareness, family violence and positive life choice modules.
b. Meres Bule - Mr Bule is sentenced to 10 ½ months imprisonment, suspended for a period of 16 months. The defendant is warned that if he is convicted of any offence in the next 16 months, he will be taken into custody and serve his sentence of imprisonment as well as the penalty for the further offending. Mr Aru is also sentenced to 6 months supervision with special conditions to undertake anger management, alcohol and drug awareness, family violence and positive life choice modules.
c. Simeon Joseph - Mr Joseph is sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, suspended for a period of 6 months. The defendant is warned that if he is convicted of any offence in the next 6 months, he will be taken into custody and serve his sentence of imprisonment as well as the penalty for the further offending. Mr Aru is also sentenced to 6 months supervision with special conditions to undertake anger management, alcohol and drug awareness, family violence and positive life choice modules.
34. The defendants have 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 144 of the Penal Code [CAP 135].
[2] contrary to s 107(b) of the Penal Code [CAP 135].
[3] Tatar v Public Prosecutor [2026] VUCA 19.
[4] At paragraph 28. See also Malau v Public Prosecutor [2021] VUCA 48.