Regina v Ramo [2013] SBCA 9; CRAC 38 of 2012 (26 April 2013)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL

NATURE OF JURISDICTION:	Appeal from Judgment of the High Court of Solomon Islands Criminal Case No. 93 of 2012 (Pallaras, J)
COURT FILE NUMBER:	Criminal Appeal Case No. 38 of 2012
DATE OF HEARING:	23 April 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 April 2013
THE COURT:	Goldsbrough, President Sir Gordon Ward, JA Mwanesalua, JA
PARTIES:	Regina (Respondent) -V- Peter RAMO (Appellant)

ADVOCATES:

Appellant:	R. Talasasa for Appellant
Respondent:	M. Holara for Respondent
KEY WORDS:	Accused charged with one count of attempted murder was sentenced to six years imprisonment – whether sentence is manifestly inadequate
EX TEMPORE/RESERVED:	Reserved
ALLOWED/DISMISSED:	Dismissed
PAGES:	1-6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] Introduction. This is an appeal against sentence by the Appellant. The Respondent was convicted by the High Court on 22 October 2012 of one count of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm under Section 224 of the Penal Code (Cap. 26), on Moses Selwyn Tutu ("the victim") at Saono Village, Guadalcanal Province, on 21 August 2011. Upon conviction, the Respondent was sentenced to six years imprisonment on 23 November 2012.

[2] Background Facts. At about 7: 00 am on 21 August 2011, the victim was sitting at a table inside a house owned by Gideon Senior, playing cards with Francis Allen Gideon and with Gideon Gurano Junior. The Respondent who lived behind this house came into the room. In his hand, he held a long bush knife, which he used to attack the victim. The Respondent first struck the chair on which the victim was sitting on, and then inflicted injuries on the left shoulder, left forearm and left hand of the victim. The victim escaped through a window and fled from the house and was later treated at hospital. The laceration to the victim's shoulder measured 8cm and the laceration on the dorsal aspect of the left forearm measured 12 cm. There was also a laceration of the palm aspect of the victim's left hand exposing the 5th metacarpo-phanlangical joint with bone fragments being visible, and there were some minor abrasions on the victims face. The victim was treated with suturing, pressure dressings and intravenous antibiotics.

[3] Appellant's Case. The offence for which the Respondent was convicted carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The sentence of six years imprisonment imposed on the Respondent in the court below was therefore manifestly inadequate. For that reason, this Court should exercise its discretion to set aside the sentence and substitute it with an increased sentence of eight years imprisonment.

[4] Respondent's Case. The case for the Respondent is that this Court should not set aside his sentence as it suits the nature of his offending for the crime, which he committed. On that basis, this Court should dismiss this appeal.

[5] Issues. There are two issues to be determined in this appeal. The first is whether the Court below made an error in law in imposing the sentence of six years imprisonment on the Respondent. And the second is whether this Court should interfere with the sentence imposed by the Court below.

[6] Relevant Act. The Act under which the Appellant lodged it's appeal against the sentence imposed on the Respondent is Section 21 (1)(b) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Act (Cap. 6) ("the Act"). These provisions state:

"21 (1) subject to the provisions of this Section, the Director of Public Prosecutions may appeal where –

(b) In the opinion of the Director of Prosecution the sentence imposed by the High Court is manifestly inadequate.

(2) On the Appeal brought under the provisions of this Section, the Court of Appeal may, if it thinks that the decision of the High Court should be set aside or varied on the ground of a wrong decision on any point of law, make such an order or revisit the case, together with the judgment or order of the High Court for determination whether or not by way of trial de novo or rehearing, with such directions as appear to the Court of Appeal to be necessary or expedient".

(7) In this appeal, the Appellant does not rely on "a wrong decision on any point of law" as provided in S. 21(2) of the Act. The appeal is based on Section 21(1)(b) of the Act.

(8) The Appellant solely based his appeal on Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. In relation to that ground, the Respondent contends that the sentence of six years imprisonment imposed on him fits his crime.

(9) Case Law. In Vaumer v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 51 the Court said at page 58 said; "The sole criteria relevant to a determination of the upper limit of an appropriate sentence is that the punishment fit the crime. Apart from mitigating factors, it is the circumstances of the offence alone that must be the determinant of an appropriate sentence".
(10) Interference with Judgment. In R v Tait and Bartley (1973) 24 ALR at Page 476 the Court said;

"An appellate Court does not interfere with the Sentence imposed merely because it is of the view that the sentence is insufficient or excessive. It interferes only if it be shown that the sentencing judge was in error in acting on a wrong principle or in misunderstanding or wrongly assessing some salient features of the evidence. The error may appear in what was said in the proceedings, or the sentence itself may be so excessive or inadequate to manifest such an error."

In Kaimanisi v R (1966) SBCA 2 His Lordship Muria CJ stated:

"The appellate Court will not interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial Judge in the exercise of his discretion unless it is shown to be manifestly excessive or manifestly inadequate either because the Judge has acted on wrong principle or has clearly overlooked or understated or overstated or misunderstood some salient feature of the evidence. The question therefore is not whether this Court would have imposed on different sentence to the one given but rather whether there was an error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion of the Court below."

Summary. In order to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed in any particular case, the Court would consider the nature and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. In this case the facts of the case have been agreed by the Defence and the Prosecution. The sentence in the case was based primarily on the facts agreed to by the Defence and the Prosecution in the Court below. This Court does not find any error being committed by the trial Judge. The Court agrees with the sentence passed by the Court below and will affirm the sentence of six years. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Orders of the Court.

1. Appeal dismissed.
2. The sentence of six years imprisonment is confirmed.
   

............................................................................
Justice Edwin Goldsbrough
President

............................................................................
Sir Gordon Ward, JA
Member

............................................................................
Justice Mwanesalua, JA
Member