Popoe v Regina [2015] SBCA 1; SICOA-CRAC 42 of 2014 (25 February 2015)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

(Faukona J)

Criminal Appeal Case No. 42 of 2014

BETWEEN:

JOHN POPOE
Appellant

AND:

REGINA
Respondent

Date of determination on application for leave: 25th February 2015.
Ms H. Blundell, Counsel on record for the Appellant.

RULLING ON APPLICATON FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL.

Faukona J: This application is filed pursuant to Rule 32 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. And R 32 (2) the application is forwarded to me sitting as a single judge to formulate determination on the papers.

2. Rule 32 (1) provides a privilege for the Appellant to file notice off application for extension of time where the appeal period required by law has been expired and no appeal is filed, or file an application for leave to appeal. The Appellant take advantage of both situations.

3. The Appellant was convicted on 14th October 2014 for the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 199 of the Penal Code. That he on 20th September 2010, at Lambi, West Guadalcanal did unlawfully cause the death of Ms Monica Hapinaige. On 6th November 2014 the Appellant was sentenced for ten (10) years imprisonment after conviction.

4. On 18th November 2014 the Appellant filed notice of application for extension of time and application for leave to appeal. A sworn statement deposed by the Counsel representing the Appellant was filed on the same date in support of the applications.

5. There are two appeal grounds entrenched in the application for leave to appeal. One that the sentence imposed by the learned trial judge was manifestly excessive and that this Lordship erred in characterising the offending at the higher range of seriousness for this offence.

6. I have read the materials and the sworn statement in support of the applications. I noted the reason for the application for abridge of time is because Counsels on record for the Appellant were at that time not able to properly consider the merits and grounds of appeal due to respective Court commitments and that the Public Solicitor's Office was short staffed at that time.

7. The Court of Appeal cannot hear the appeal unless time is allowed to file the appeal which is now over the time as required by law. The excuse the Counsel for the Appellant advance is work commitment. I think everyone who is employed has work to do and of course are busy. Whether the office is under staffed or not there is always work to be done. One has to prioritise work according to the order of urgency. In this case there were two Counsels involved in the Appellant's case in the court below. With those considerations it appears the Counsels had failed their client the Appellant. The excuse given by the Counsel is unacceptable.

8. Also noted are the two appeal grounds which absolutely reflected the second is a follow on from the first ground, but cannot be vice versa. Because the learned Judge characterising the offending at the higher range the sentence imposed was excessive and amount to an error. That is a sloppy kind of a ground to rely on. In manslaughter charge, where a life was taken from a person, sentence is expected to be serious. In my prudent thinking this is a case where I must refuse to grant leave. The error as alleged is minimal, therefore provide minimal avenue for argument.

Orders:

1. Application for leave to appeal refused.

2. Application by way of notice for extension of time refused.

The Court.