State v Laqeni - sentence [2005] FJHC 688; HAC0001.2005L (7 November 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC0001 OF 2005L

STATE

v.

TANIELA LAQENI

Mr. K. Tunidau for the State
Mr. K. Vuataki for the Accused

Date of Hearing: 2, 3 and 7 November 2005
Date of Sentence: 7 November 2005

SENTENCE

Taniela Laqeni, the 3 assessors have unanimously expressed the opinion that you are guilty of the offence of the manslaughter of your wife, Roselyn Ledua and you have been convicted accordingly. This is your sentence.

The facts as presented in the evidence to the Court are that on the 25^th November 2004, you together with your wife, your friend, Master Line and your niece, Wainikiti Kamea went drinking to Saweni Beach. You and Master Line having purchased a carton of rum and cola.

You had left your school, St. Thomas School, that day at about 2.30pm. You consumed the carton of rum and cola by about 5.00pm and you returned to town and purchased another carton of rum and cola, that is another 24 cans and the four of you then proceeded to Marine Drive at the seawall and consumed a large part of that second carton. You say you had consumed somewhere between 13 and 15 cans of rum and cola.

Sometime about or shortly after 7.00pm, the four of your proceeded again to Nadi and then to your home at Lomawai. You drove the vehicle initially on leaving the seawall. At Navutu roundabout, your wife took over because of your drunkenness. When you were proceeding along the Queens Road, shortly prior to the Natabua Road intersection, you observed the hand of Master Line on the thigh or between the thighs of your wife, during that time she was driving the vehicle. You exclaimed at the time and you then proceeded punching your wife. The vehicle was stopped near the Natabua Road intersection. You got out of the vehicle, you pulled your wife out of the front seat of the vehicle and proceeded to assault her.

Master Line ran away from the scene at that time. You then put your wife in the backseat of the motor vehicle proceeded up the Natabua Road looking for Master Line. You again stopped the vehicle, pulled your wife out and again punched and kicked her, pushed her back into the rear seat of the vehicle, slamming the door on her legs and kicking her legs into the vehicle. You then proceeded to Saweni Beach and into a feeder road off the Saweni Beach Road where you again pulled your wife out of the car, removed her clothing and you again punched and kicked her. She wasn’t talking. She was murmuring in pain.

She was bleeding and you then put her back in the car and proceeded to drive to Semo Village. It was suggested to you by your niece to take her to the hospital but you declined to do though, instead you slept in the car. Your niece got out of the car whilst you were asleep in there and you then in the morning went to your aunt, Kiti Babitu. You sought her help to provide some treatment to your wife. She quickly ascertained that your wife was cold and encouraged you to then take your wife to the Sigatoka Hospital where shortly after arrival, she was pronounced dead. You then went to the police station and told them what occurred.

You tell the Court that it was the provocation of your wife not brushing away or removing the hand of Master Line that caused you to do as you did and you tell the Court that you did not have the intent to kill your wife or to cause grievous injury to her but in any event, it is quite apparent from the evidence of the pathologist and the post mortem report that you caused the extensive injuries to your wife. You had used extreme force in punching and kicking her. She was suffering on examination, external injuries which included lacerations around the left and right eye with the ruptured left eyeball, contusions and bruises on the face and forehead, bruises on the upper part of the chest, bruises around the left breast, bruises on the lower abdomen on upper thigh, bruises on the thighs, knees and dorsal of the feet and the large abrasion on the right part of thigh.

On internal examination, the doctor reported an extensive scalp haematoma in the fronto parietal region and subarachnoid and haemorrhage involving both frontal and parietal lobes. In the thoraxic cavity there is hemothorax due to fracture of the 2^nd, 7^th to 12^th ribs anteriorly and the 8^th to 11^th ribs posterior on the right side and the 8^th to 10^th anteriorly on the left side. A total of 14 ribs were broken.

The lungs had collapsed and the pleural cavity contained 1.5 litres of blood. In the abdominal cavity, the doctor reported that there was a large subdiaphragmatic tear laceration of the liver with hemoperitoneum with 1 litre of blood escaped into the abdominal cavity.

The injuries to your wife were massive. The doctor also gave evidence that these were injuries inflicted by a blow with the soft object, your fist and your feet. He concluded that the cause of death was multiple rib fractures, rupture of the liver, hemathorax and hemoperitoneum.

To put it very bluntly, you gave your wife an awful beating, nothing and no circumstances and no provocation can justify a man doing that to a woman. It is even more so that nothing and no provocation and no circumstances can justify a husband doing that to a wife or even worse a father doing to the mother of his child. It is appalling behaviour.

It is submitted on your behalf that you are 27 years of age, that you are trained as a school teacher, you hold a Diploma in Education, you are Christian and belong to the Methodist faith and that you have 1 child born to the deceased that child now being 5 years of age. You are continuing your studies and doing further studies at the University of the South Pacific in Education. Your father comes to Court and supports you and in fairness to him, he must be horrified at what you have done. He says that you are remorseful and most importantly he asked the Court not to take you away from your daughter, that your daughter suffered in having her mother killed and he says, “don’t take the father away as well”.

He also relevantly says that you have maintained the relationship with the deceased’s mother and her family. Your father says that you have continued to maintain your wife’s mother who is in poor circumstances and that you have undertaken to him to continue that maintenance indefinitely.

You are currently unemployed and you have lost your employment as a school teacher. You have lost the opportunity to join the British Army which was something you have to be and that you now assist on the land in your mother’s village, Semo Village and whilst it wasn’t said it is obvious you also have to live that what you have done.

The Fiji Court of Appeal has in Kim Nam Bae v The State – Cr. App. AAU0015 of 1998S considered appropriate penalties with respect to manslaughter and the Court said at page 4 of their judgment:

“The task of sentencing is not an exact science which is capable of mathematical calculation. This particularly so with manslaughter where the circumstances and the offender’s culpability can vary greatly from case to case. An appropriate sentence in any case is fixed by having regard to a variety of competing considerations. In order to arrive at the appropriate penalty for any case, the courts must have regard to sentences imposed by the High Court and the Court of Appeal for offences of the type in question to determine the appropriate range of sentence.

The cases demonstrate that the penalty imposed for manslaughter ranges from a suspended sentence where there may have been grave provocation to 12 years imprisonment where the degree of violence is high and provocation is minimal. It is important to bear in mind that this range covers a very wide set of varying circumstances which attract different sentences in different manslaughter cases. Each case will attract the appropriate sentence within the range depending on its own facts.”

The Fiji Court of Appeal further considered the penalties for manslaughter in Sashi Kapoor Rayan v The State – Cr. App. No. AAU0028 of 2000S and there confirmed that penalties range from suspended sentences to 12 years imprisonment and said:

“In the latter category the degree of violence is high and provocation minimal.”

The Court then said in Rauve v The State – Cr. App. No. 13 of 1990:

“However, we note that punishment in Fiji for manslaughter of a serious kind has normally ranged from 7 to 10 years imprisonment depending on the degree of gravity.”

Counsel for the Accused has referred the Court to Bharat Lal v The State – Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 1990 where the Court at page 8 said:

“Mr. Shankar heavily relied on the observation of the Court of Appeal in Kishore Lal v Reginam – Cr. App. No. 54 of 1984 where it said:

‘One can give favourable consideration to the man who in outrage battered another with bare hands.’

In the present case the appellant had throttled his wife to death in circumstances where there was neither evidence of nor any justification to any outrage sudden or otherwise.”

Counsel for the Accused also refers the Court to the decision of Mr. Justice Govind in State v Tomasi Aisea - HAC0013 of 1997L where a custodial sentence of 18 months imprisonment was imposed for a husband who have killed his wife after a lengthy period during which the wife had a love affairs with other people. In that case provocation covered an extensive period of time.

Counsel for the State submits that this is a manslaughter of a serious kind and then he calls for a sentence within a range of 7 to 10 years imprisonment. With that submission, I agree. It is my opinion that it warrants a commencing point of the high range of 7 to 10 years and I take as a commencement point 9 years imprisonment.

The accused has a prior conviction for violence in 2002 and received suspended sentence that lapsed about 7 days prior to the commission of this offence.

The accused’s failure to take his wife to the hospital on the night, to take her to the Lautoka Hospital or Nadi Hospital or Sigatoka Hospital is in my opinion an aggravation. Those aggravations demand a further term of imprisonment. The accused did however on being told that his wife had died immediately attend the Sigatoka Police Station and on attending that police station, he immediately admitted to most of the assaults, to most of the conduct. He was interviewed under caution and there he admitted as I have said to most of what had occurred and for that he certainly is entitled, in my opinion, to a discount.

There are further mitigating factors to which I have referred that is the remorse, perhaps the greatest factor is the fact that he has to live with it with the knowledge that he killed his wife, the mother of his child. Bearing in mind that sentencing is not a mathematical exercise and in taking account of the aggravating and mitigating factors, I am of the opinion that an appropriate sentence in the circumstances is a term of 8 years imprisonment and accordingly you are sentenced to 8 years imprisonment from today.

JOHN CONNORS
JUDGE

At Lautoka
7 November 2005