Rongodala v Regina [2006] SBCA 2; CA-CRAC 008 of 2006 (25 May 2006)

IN SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL

NATURE OF JURISDICTION:	Appeal from Judgment of the High Court of Solomon Islands – (Mwanesalua J).
COURT FILE NO:	Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2006
DATE OF HEARING:	Wednesday 17th May 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	Thursday 25th May 2006
THE COURT:	Lord Slynn of Hadley P Williams JA Ward JA
PARTIES:	RONGODALA -V- REGINA
ADVOCATES: Appellant: Respondent:	P R C Southey R B Talasasa
KEY WORDS:	Where the appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment after being found guilty of manslaughter – whether the sentencing judge properly took into account all mitigating factors – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
EX TEMPORE/RESERVED/ ALLOWED/DISMISSED:	Dismissed.
PAGES:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The Appellant appeals against a sentence of 7 years imprisonment imposed after he was found guilty of manslaughter on the ground that it is manifestly excessive and out of line with sentences imposed in the High Court for comparable offences.

The appellant was charged with murder and pleaded not guilty. The matter went to trial and the trial Judge found that there was provocation in accordance with section 205 of the Penal Code and in consequence recorded a conviction for manslaughter. It does not appear that the appellant offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, but it must be said that at the trial he did not dispute causing the death.

The deceased was the de facto wife of the appellant. Prior to the incident in question the appellant and the deceased had been to Auki market and they separated there. The deceased returned to the house some hours later and went to bed. The appellant returned about day break. An argument developed after the appellant told the deceased that he had been looking for her at the market but could not find her there. The deceased then accused the appellant of having sex with a girl at the market and said to him that he should eat sperm from the vagina of that girl. Words to that effect were repeated by the deceased. Those words made the appellant extremely angry; he went to where an axe was kept near the bedroom door, took it into the room and struck the deceased a single blow to the head with the axe. It is sufficient to say that subsequently the deceased died from the injury so sustained.

Though there was only one blow it appears that the appellant raised the axe in both hands and delivered a forceful blow down onto the head of the deceased.

In convicting the appellant the trial Judge said that the words used by the deceased to a person in the community to which the appellant belonged would cause him to lose self control and react as he did.

It was accepted that the appellant had no previous convictions, and he cooperated with the police by readily confessing the death of the deceased. But the Judge also took into account that, after the provocation, the appellant armed himself with an axe and struck the deceased a severe blow. The appellant was aged 31 when he stood the sentence.

At first instance counsel for the appellant submitted that the starting point in considering sentence should be three and half years imprisonment. He also submitted that as it was a domestic homicide the sentence should be 'on low scale'. The main submission of counsel for the appellant was that the sentence was not in accord with the level of sentencing usually imposed by courts in the Solomon Islands, particularly where after facing a charge of murder a conviction for manslaughter was recorded. Counsel referred to the decision of the Chief Justice in R –v- Martin Talu (No.402 of 2004). There the Chief Justice reviewed a number of cases where sentences in the range of three and a half years to five years imprisonment had been imposed for manslaughter. But he also referred to another two cases where terms of six and seven years imprisonment had been imposed. In that particular case the Chief Justice imposed a sentence of three years on a young man where he had cooperated fully with police, and had demonstrated genuine remorse.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that by that decision the Chief Justice was acknowledging a sentence in the range of three years to five years was appropriate for manslaughter.

That decision does not set a benchmark for the sentencing of manslaughter. Recently the Chief Justice in Burenikarawa (No. 10 of 2006) imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment on a man who pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

It can be said that there are many grades of seriousness when it comes to the offence of manslaughter. In determining the appropriate penalty many factors have to be taken into account. Without suggesting that these are the only considerations, ordinarily a Court would have regard to the age of the offender, previous criminal history of the offender particularly whether there are previous convictions involving violence, provocation, intoxication, type of weapon if any used, persistence of the attack, vulnerability of the victim, and the relationship between the parties.

Though this appellant had no previous convictions and was provoked into attacking the deceased, nevertheless the offence was a particularly brutal one involving the use of an axe to the head of the victim. The fact that there was a domestic relationship between the parties is not a mitigating factor in this case; there is nothing in the material suggesting problems in the relationship prior to this incident.

While some may regard seven years imprisonment as being on the high side for causing death by single blow to the head with an axe, it cannot be said to be manifestly excessive. Seven years imprisonment is clearly within the applicable range for an offence of this type.

The appeal against sentence should be dismissed.

Lord Slynn of Hadley P
Williams JA
Ward JA