Ironimo v Reginam [1996] SBHC 63; HC-CRAC 006 of 1996 (8 November 1996)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Crim. App. (HC) Case No. 6 of 1996

<

ter">DAVID IRONIMO

-v-

REGINAM

<

="3">Before: Muria, CJ

Hearing: 8th November 1996 - Judgment: 8th November 1996

Counsel: M. B. Samuel for the Appellant; DPP for the Respondent

MURIA, CJ:

The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of storebreaking contrary to section 293(a) of the Penal Code and was sentenced by the Auki Principal Magistrate's Court to 18 months imprisonment. He now appeals against that sentence on the ground that it was excessive.

The main argument put on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Principal Magistrate did not take into account the appellant's guilty plea and payment of compensation. Had those factors been taken into account, the sentence would have been appropriately less than 18 months.

I have observed from the record that in his reasons for sentence, the learned Principal Magistrate clearly took into consideration the appellant's plea of guilty, his cooperation with the police and the fact that he was a young offender. The learned Principal Magistrate then balanced those with what he considered to be the aggravating features of the case, namely, the offence was committed in a group and it was planned. Having done that the learned Principal Magistrate imposed an 18 months custodial sentence.

On the facts of the case, it is obvious that the accused had planned to go to the victim's store at night and to steal therein. Having gone to the store during the day, the appellant and two others later came back at 10 pm purposely to break into the victim's store and to steal therein. It was the appellant who broke into the store using a screw driver while his two friends kept a look-out outside. The appellant took the goods from the store and passed them out to his two friends who waited outside. The total value of the goods was $640.00. Those facts were agreed to by the appellant.

On those facts it could hardly be surprising that the learned Principal Magistrate took a firm view. The aggravating features referred to by the learned Principal Magistrate were justified to be so considered In fact an additional aggravating feature not mentioned by the learned Principal Magistrate is the fact that the offence was committed at night.

I feel the appellant was fortunate that he was only sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, in these circumstances. An offence of this nature particularly committed in company after a plan merits a sentence of more than 18 months imprisonment. This court in such a case on appeal has the power to increase sentence to merit the seriousness of the offence committed. I will not, however, do that in this case.

On the argument regarding payment of compensation, I feel the record does not show that the appellant paid compensation. Rather the record shows that the appellant and his friends were made to give one pig, seven red money and 500 porpoise teeth to the victim before the commission of the offence. I would prefer the argument put by the learned DPP in this regard.

However, even if there was compensation as submitted by counsel for the appellant, it would not make any difference to the sentence of imprisonment in this case.

In those circumstances, I feel the sentence of 18 months imprisonment sentence should not be disturbed.

Appeal dismissed.

ter">GJB MURIA
CHIEF JUSTICE