Regina v Kwaimani [1997] SBHC 93; HCSI-CRC 3 of 1997 (14 April 1997)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No.3 of 1997

REGINA

-v-

KWAIMANI

High Court of Solomon Islands
(PALMER J)
Criminal Case No.3 of 1997

Hearing: 24/3/97, 25/3/97 & 26/3/97
Sentence: 14th April, 1997

J. Faga for Prosecution
Mrs. M. Samuels for Defendant

PALMER J: SENTENCE:

You have been acquitted of murder because the necessary mens rea for that offence had not been proven beyond reasonable double. You nevertheless have unlawfully taken the life of another man, which is a very serious offence and thus convicted of manslaughter. Manslaughter carries a maximum prison sentence of life. Obviously, the more serious type of cases would receive longer prison sentences.

Whilst I am satisfied on one hand that imprisonment is inevitable, I must weigh carefully the period of time to be given. That is not easy. However there are some guidelines which I can take note of and the mitigation points raised in your favour to decide on the appropriate length of time.

I note this is a sad and unfortunate case, not only for the deceased, but also for you. The deceased on one hand is a person whose mental faculties obviously had been impaired, whilst on the other hand you can be described as an educated man in your society. You started off well - taking the right actions, in approaching the Guardian of the deceased, Roy Enori and telling him about your grievance. I consider that in your favour. I note the particular circumstances surrounding the commission of the unlawful act also as unfortunate and clearly not premeditated or planned by you. I consider that in your favour, that you did not went out purposely to assault or seek the deceased to attack him. You were on your way to the store when you happened to see him at the Malu’u Health Centre and that distracted your attention.

The deceased obviously was at the Health Centre for his usual medical treatment. I do not know whether you knew about this or not - that he had a reason to be there. I can consider in your favour however that you were not aware.

I accept that the attack was clearly done on the spur of the moment. I consider that in your favour. You could have attacked the deceased repeatedly, but you did not do so.

I also note the circumstances giving rise to your actions that the deceased had committed a serious offence in custom, but that does not give you the right to assault him. As I said earlier on, you started off well but did not complete it. As a result you ended up committing a worse act. However, I do weigh in your favour that you had demonstrated that you had good intentions of dealing with the situation but that what happened subsequently was simply unfortunate.

I note the circumstances surrounding your young family and also that compensation had been paid. That does make things easier for you because it should heal or settle any rifts between your people and the people of the deceased. I also take into account your age - that you are a young person and that a long prison sentence may cause more damage than good.

I have also considered similar cases of manslaughter to look at the appropriate range in which your case would fall in. Despite the mitigating factors considered in your favour, I must also bear in mind that you were the aggressor in this case on an unarmed and it appears completely unprepared person. Had he been prepared, then the deceased may not have suffered such severe and unfortunate fall whereby he had injured his head.

I am obliged to bear in mind as well a deterrence element, that in such situations, taking the law into ones hand is not the right thing to do and that offenders must expect to be imprisoned for it.

I give credit for the fact that you are a man of previous good character and have not had a breach with the law before.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied a sentence of 3 1/2 years is appropriate.

Convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to prison for 3 1/2 years with effect from date first taken into custody.

ALBERT R. PALMER
(JUDGE)