Regina v Asipara [1995] SBHC 105; HC-CRC 025 of 1994 (15 May 1995)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 25 of 1994

REGINA

-v-

STEPHEN ASIPARA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)

Hearing: 15/5/95
Sentence: 15/5/95

DPP for Prosecution
J. Remobatu for Defendant

PALMER J: The accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter and he is accordingly convicted of that offence.

The maximum sentence of punishment that can be imposed on such a charge is as correctly pointed out by Mr J Remobatu, sentence of life imprisonment. However, as also correctly pointed out by him, such sentences are normally reserved for the more serious cases of manslaughter.

Any case of manslaughter nevertheless is serious, because it involves the loss of life. However, the Courts have consistently taken the approach of looking at the surrounding circumstances of each case and then deciding whether a severe or lesser sentence should be imposed.

This case as also correctly submitted by Mr Remobatu would fall in the latter category.

The circumstances showed clearly that the offence arose from a domestic row between a father (the deceased) and his son, the accused.

The circumstances are particularly unfortunate and can be described as tragic because, both were to a greater or lesser extent under the influence of alcohol, and most likely, this must have been a contributing factor in the way the accused and the deceased, his father had acted and re-acted towards one another.

Maybe had both been in their normal or right minds, then their actions and reactions may not have been over-emphasised.

I have listened very carefully to what learned Counsel has said on behalf of the Accused and I accept most, if not all of what has been submitted.

I accept that there was no predetermined plan involved. I accept that the blow was delivered on the spur of the moment.

I note too that it was delivered on the chest. This to a certain extent showed that the blow was executed with some caution and in my view supports the submission that the "Accused" did not intend by that blow though unlawful, (any blow to the body of a person without lawful excuse is a crime) to cause the death of the "Accused". This is further supported in my view by the fact that no further blows or punches were delivered to the body of the deceased.

To a certain extent the death was not caused directly by the blow on the chest. In fact, the blow would not have caused any serious injuries other than may be a sore chest.

The cause of the death as revealed in the medical report was believed to have been shock from severe concussion to the brain stem consistent with a fall. The blow on the chest therefore was not the direct cause of death. It was the fact that on falling he hit his head hard and that caused the injuries which resulted in death.

I take into account the fact that you are a very young man and that the effect of what has happened must have been a very severe strain on your emotions.

I accept the submission of your learned Counsel that you are very sorry for what has happened.

The time spent in prison in my view should be such that it gives you the opportunity to think things through and make changes to your life style and fashion. Maybe one of those should best be to give up the use of alcohol. It is unfortunate that you may have learned its bad effects the tragic way, but if you should come out of prison a changed man then, I think, you can only give the best for your own people and the community you live in.

The case referred to by Mr Remobatu, the case of Regina -v- Matthew Garunu [1986] SBHC 12; [1985-1986] SILR 192, is quite appropriate for purposes of comparison.

It is my view that the facts of that case were more serious in comparison to the facts of this case.

In Matthew Garunu’s case, there was a fight in which a punch was delivered to the face of the deceased causing him to fall backwards and hit his head on the ground. The accused however did not stop there. He went further and delivered two kicks to the face of the deceased on the ground. The Court held that all those acts contributed to the death of the deceased.

I have already analysed in some detail the distinctions that can be noted in this case.

There was a row. It went on and off. There were struggles too, but nothing serious. Both were under the influence of liquor and therefore their actions, reactions and sense of balance too would have been affected. Maybe if the deceased had not been drunk as well, then he may have been able to keep his balance or cushion his fall with his hands or some other part of his body.

As I said earlier, the blow was delivered to the chest and not to the head, and when the deceased fell, there was no further attack from the "Accused".

Taking all the above factors and giving the credit for his guilty plea and that you are a person of previous good character, the appropriate sentence in my view is one of two years, to be back dated to the date you were first apprehended and remanded in custody.

It appears that the "Accused" in that respect would have served a substantial part of his sentence. It is not clear whether he would be entitled to remission or not. If so, then it is possible he may be eligible for an immediate release. That is however, a matter for the Prison Authorities to decide upon and maybe Mr Remobatu can make appropriate enquires in respect of that.

Sentence: 2 years with effect from date taken into custody.

A.R. PALMER
JUDGE