Director of Public Prosecutions v Simeon (No 2) [1986] SBHC 7; [1985-1986] SILR 147 (10 February 1986)

1985-1986 SILR 147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Appeal Case No. 38 of 1985

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

SIMEON (NO. 2)

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Wood C.J.)
Criminal Appeal Case No. 38 of 1985

3l January l986 at Honiara
Judgment: 10 February l986

Sentence - deterrent

Facts:

The DPP appealed against a sentence of four months imprisonment for unlawful wounding on the grounds that it was too short for a deliberate blow to the face with a bush knife and that the magistrate felt obliged to follow a previous unduly lenient sentence on another count. The respondent was first sentenced to five months imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm arising out of an incident where, provoked by being hit on the head with an iron bar, he kicked out blindly with his bare foot and hit the wrong person. He was then a first offender, he pleaded guilty and in addition to his sentence he was ordered to pay $250 in compensation. The second charge arose out of melee where the respondent arrived on the scene armed with a bush knife and proceeded to make a deliberate attack with the knife on the victim who was being held down. The respondent was no longer a first offender and he pleaded not guilty.

Held:

The sentence of four months imprisonment was manifestly inadequate, assaults of this nature becoming all too prevalent in Solomon Islands and the victim being lucky he was not seriously or even fatally injured.

Accordingly, the sentence of four months was set aside and a sentence of eighteen months to run consecutively to the first sentence of five months was substituted therefor.

Cases considered:

DPP v. Simeon (No. l) (l985/86) SILR ll8

John Freeman for the Appellant
Andrew Radclyffe for the Respondent

Wood CJ: This is an appeal by the Director brought under s.282 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the sentence imposed by the Principal Magistrate (Central) on October 11, l985 for unlawful wounding. The sentence imposed was 4 months imprisonment to run consecutively to a sentence of 5 months imprisonment imposed by another Magistrate on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm.

On November 22, l985 I refused the Director’s application for leave to appeal out of time in respect of the earlier sentence of 5 months imprisonment but this appeal was filed in time. In that judgment however I did indicate that I would look at the question of the totality of the sentence imposed when considering this appeal against sentence.

The Director’s grounds of appeal are as follows–

1. The sentence was clearly too short for a deliberate blow to the face with a bush knife; and

2. The learned Magistrate appeared to consider himself obliged to follow the unduly lenient sentence on Count 4 (i.e. the sentence of 5 months imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm).

When the respondent appeared before the Court on the two charges, inter alia, he pleaded guilty to the first and not guilty to the second. The Principal Magistrate (West) then proceeded to conviction and sentence on the first charge. In that case the respondent had not used his bush knife but only his bare feet. He was a first offender and had been provoked kicking out blindly having been hit with an iron bar on the head and he in fact kicked the wrong person. In addition to the prison sentence he was ordered to pay $250 compensation.

The charge with which we are concerned in this appeal was heard by another Magistrate on a plea of not guilty.

The learned Magistrate found that the respondent arrived on the scene with others armed with a bush knife and made a direct and deliberate attack on the victim but that as the blade was falling the victim turned his head and fortuitously received a less serious cut to his cheek. In passing sentence the learned Magistrate had this to say-

“The defendant has been convicted after trial of a serious offence. Upon the evidence he made a deliberate vicious attack on a man who was being held. He must receive a severe sentence .... I have to take into account the fact that many people are now prepared to use knives without thinking of the disastrous injuries. I am not dealing with the defendant de novo and must take into account the fact this was committed during a melee and look at his other sentence.”

After saying that one can be forgiven for thinking that the sentence would have been years rather than months. Assaults of this nature are all too prevalent in Solomon Islands very often causing hideous injuries or deaths. The victim in this case was extremely lucky not to in fact have been seriously injured. If he had not turned his head he may have been fatally injured.

I am satisfied that the sentence of 4 months imprisonment was manifestly inadequate and I set it aside. I will substitute a sentence of l8 months' imprisonment to run consecutively with the sentence of 5 months imprisonment imposed by the first Magistrate.