Regina v Campbell [1994] SBHC 62; HCSI-CRC 21 of 1994 (19 September 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No.21 of 1994

REGINA

-v-

ALAN CAMPBELL

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)
Criminal Case No. 21 of 1994

Hearing: 19th September 1994
Sentence: 19th September 1994

F. Mwanesalua for Prosecution
A. Radclyffe for the Defendant

PALMER J: The accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter in which he had driven a vehicle on the early hours of the 14th May, 1994, over the deceased twice; once as he was driving towards Kirakira to get more beer, and again as he was returning to Maewo Village, the place from which he had originally started from.

The facts as agreed indicated very clearly that the accused was drunk at the time of driving. There had been a dance held earlier on that evening at MaewoVillage in which the accused had obtained an occasional liquor licence from the appropriate licensing authority to sell beer from about 7.30 p.m to 2 a.m the following morning. At around 2 a.m, somehow an extension appears to have been obtained whereby beer could continue to be sold. As a result of that extension, the accused decided to travel to Kirakira to get more beer.

The first comment I will make on the extension of the occasional liquor licensing hours is that the Licensing Authority should never make an extension on the spot. No matter how ‘good’ a cause the fundraising activity may have been organised for, such Licensing Authority should never lose sight of the fact that uncontrolled or continuous consumption of alcohol will eventually dull the sensibilities of any reasonable man to the point that he or she may become completely irrational and act in a totally irresponsible manner. Hence, the wisdom in setting limits and abiding by them.

The sequence of events that follow from such a decision to extend the sale of liquor beyond the original time limit of 2 a.m., can only be described as tragic.

It was most unfortunate that the person who should drive the vehicle to collect the beer at Kirakira was the accused who had clearly been already under the influence of liquor. It was also most unfortunate that the victim of the tragic accident was so drunk to be incapable of looking after himself, that he had it seems just fallen asleep on the middle of a very wet road and despite some very heavy rain that night, was completely oblivious to anything around him.

The facts indicated that the accused was travelling very fast when he ran over the victim. He did stop it seems but only after running over the victim, reversed and then took off again for Kirakira. After purchasing the beers he returned to Maewo Village, and again running over the victim in the middle of the road.

When questioned by the police about the incident he could not remember what had happened.

Mr Radclyffe submits that the actions of the accused are all consistent with that of a person who had had too much to drink. He pointed out that the accused is very sorry for what has happened, and had he been normal, such incident would not have occurred. He submits that the accused is a man of reasonable character, when normal, and has had a steady job for a number of years.

The consumption of alcohol is not a mitigating factor. Rather, it has been recognised as an aggravating factor.

I take into account that there was no scheme or deliberate plan to kill the victim. The accused did not know that the victim would be lying in the middle of the road and that therefore he then formed the intention to run over him.

It arose through negligence and carelessness, contributed to a large extent by the use of alcohol.

The accused has five previous convictions which are minor but some would appear to be drink related. I will not attach much significance to them for the purposes of dealing with this case, and on that basis will treat this accused more as a first offender.

I give credit for a guilty plea and that the accused has shown a great deal of remorse in accepting the blame that must lie on his part for his irrational and irresponsible actions. The court accepts that had the victim been not drunk, he would not have fallen asleep in the middle of the road, and despite the fact that the accused was drunk and travelling at a high speed, no accident would actually it seems have occurred.

This tragic case shows what alcohol can do when too much is taken and the consequences that follow.

I accept the submission of Mr Radclyffe that this case can be distinguished from other manslaughter charges, in which a weapon is used in some deliberate manner. Though to some extent a vehicle in the hands of a drunken driver can be said also to be a dangerous weapon or instrument.

I must also weigh carefully the public distaste against those who are clearly unfit to drive through liquor and yet take the wheel.

Taking all factors into account, the accused is convicted and sent to prison for 5 years.

(A.R. Palmer)
JUDGE

NB: To be backdated to date first taken into custody i.e. 14/6/94