Regina v Sukina [1996] SBHC 78; HC-CRC 031 of 1995 (27 August 1996)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 31 of 1995

REGINA

-V-

JOHN FOREMAN SUKINA

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(AWICH, J)

Hearing: 27 August 1996
Sentence: 27 August 1996

F Mwanesalua for the Crown
P Lavery for the accused

AWICH, J: Plea and Conviction: The summary of facts was received as annexture to the record to become the evidence of what the accused admits. The summary discloses the elements of the offence of Conversion contrary to section 217 (1) (c) (i) of the Penal Code. Accused stated that the facts therein were correctly stated. He answered supplementary questions from court which confirmed he was freely admitting the facts. A plea of guilty to that charge is entered as the admission is unequivocal. Accused convicted on the count for the offence of Conversion contrary to section 271 (1) (c) (i) of the Penal Code.

SENTENCE

Accused, JOHN FOREMAN SUKINA has been convicted on his own plea of guilty, of the offence of conversion contrary to section 271 (1) (c) (i), of the Penal Code. The maximum penalty provided for the offence is 7 years imprisonment.

The factors that aggravate the committing of the offence in this case is that the accused was a member of Parliament, holding a position of trust deposed in him by the people of North West Malaita, his constituency then and by the government of Solomon Islands that paid him money for a specified use, water project, for the benefit of the public of North West Malaita. The sum of money is high, $8,852.00 in 1993. I have no doubt in my mind that custodial sentence is called for. A person who deals dishonestly with public money must get the message of disapproval loud and clear, especially when he is a person in position of trust such as the accused is in. The custodial sentence would usually be substantial.

In this case there are also mitigating facts. First Accused admitted right from the start and has pleaded guilty in court and shows regret. After having acted dishonestly he is now being honest about it all. Secondly, he spent some of the money for purposes connected with the interest of some members of the public, though indeed, dishonestly not for the water project intended. Some of those expenditures are celebration party at Arao Clinic, some people’s school fees (accused has no children) and church choir. Most of the expenditures were more to promote his re-election interest other than philanthropy. Thirdly, it would appear that a good number of people in that area are prepared to forgive him. He has since been elected their member in the Provincial Assembly of Malaita. That I consider very important because after all it is the people who have been cheated and let down by Mr Sukina’a who should have greater say in forgivng him. That has operated to reduce considerably the severity of the sentence. The sentence I now impose should not be taken as a measure of the extent of penalty to come for dishonesty with public funds when one is in a position of trust.

I have disregarded the records of previous convictions of the accused. One is over 9 years ago and the other two, over 10 years ago.

Accused is sentenced to improvement for 5 months. You have right of appeal against sentence and you have 30 days to do so.

Dated this 27 day of August 1996.

Sam Lungole-Awich
Judge