Regina v Wakio [1998] SBHC 65; HC-CRC 019 of 1998 (13 November 1998)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 19 of 1998

REGINA

-V-

GABRIEL WAKIO & MARTIN MANEHAI

High Court of Solomon Islands
(FRANK KABUI, J)

Hearing: 11th November 1998
Sentence: 13th November 1998

DPP for the Crown
M. Samuel (Mrs) for the 1st Accused
D. Hou for the 2nd Accused

SENTENCE

(Frank Kabui, J): You Gabriel Wakio and Martin Manehai pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter, contrary to section 192 of the Penal Code. Your pleas were recorded and you were convicted accordingly of manslaughter. That is to say you did not intend to cause death to your brother who died as a result of your action on the day of his death. In terms of section 192(2) of the Penal Code, manslaughter is a very serious crime in that the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. What then should be your case? You are brothers. The deceased was your brother. The man who was injured by the deceased is also your brother. The woman who was about to be struck by the deceased with a wooden spoon sharpened at one end just moments before you struck the deceased is the mother of all of you. Your case is one of commotion within one family though one with serious consequences at that. The deceased was a man with a long history of mental illness and had a tendency towards violence. This was probably due to his state of mind being affected by his mental illness. You are men of good character. You have no previous convictions as far as police records are concerned. You pleaded guilty. You have also paid money as compensation in custom to normalise relations. In your minds, you may feel that there should be no more fuss about any further punishment. You may feel that you should go free after the payment of compensation in custom. Anyone else in Solomon Islands would probably feel the same. In custom, a lot of disputes are settled by the Chiefs and the Local Courts if necessary. Settlement is always by way of payment of compensation. This is our way of settling disputes. And it is binding and respected. However, our big law, the Constitution and an Act of Parliament would override customary law where customary law goes against the Constitution or an Act of Parliament. (See Schedule 3 to the Constitution). The Penal Code (Cap. 5) is an Act of Parliament and therefore it overrides customary law. I have taken into account all that is said in your favour by your lawyers and the report on you by Father Donation Hite’e, your Parish priest. This is a sad case. It is a case that the Psychiatric Authorities should learn from and improve upon their rehabilitation practice in the future. One of your lawyers, Mrs Samuel, has asked me to consider your case in the light of Regina v Stephen Asipara (Criminal Case No. 25 of 1994, unreported) where the High Court imposed a sentence of 2 years imprisonment for manslaughter. It was a case where the accused caused the death of his own father due to some argument between them. I have read the judgement on sentence by Palmer, J. in that case. I have also read another judgement on sentence by Ward, CJ. in Regina v Pituvaka (Criminal case No. 22 of 1986). It was a case where the accused caused the death of a friend by being careless with a shoot-gun which went off killing his friend. The High Court imposed also a sentence of 2 years. I have also read the judgement on sentence by Muria, CJ. in Regina v Tuanitete (Criminal case No. 29 of 1992) where the accused caused the death of his mother by throwing a rake at her. In that case, the High Court imposed a sentence of 4 years. The facts of these cases that I have cited are not the same. In Regina v Stephen Asipara, consumption of alcohol was a contributing factor. As the judge said it was an unfortunate case. In Regina v Pituvaka, the accused carried around a loaded shot-gun which went-off killing the deceased. The judge said it was a tragic case caused by a stupid and careless conduct with a shot-gun. In Regina v Tuanitete, the accused was originally charged with the crime of murder but was acquitted but nevertheless found guilty of manslaughter. The accused was the aggressor towards his mother when his demand for money was refused. In your case, the situation is slightly different. I accept that you did act to save your mother from the real possibility of being injured, seriously injured or even killed by the deceased. Your intention was to disarm the deceased and thus prevent him from causing injury to others in the family as the deceased had just mortally wounded your other brother. I have thought about your case very carefully and considered all the options open to me. In the end, I feel that I cannot simply turn a blind eye to section 192(2) of the Penal Code. The least I can do in your case is to sentence you to 2 years imprisonment. I do this from my heart. I would have done the same if you were my blood brothers. Your sentence will commence from 8th March, 1998 the date you went into custody.

Dated this 13th day of November 1998

F. O. Kabui
Judge