Regina v Abusae - Sentence [1999] SBHC 81; HC-CRC 028 of 1995 (27 August 1999)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDan>

Criminal Case No. 028 of 1995

class="Mso="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> REGINan>

v

WILLIE ABUSAE

High Court of Solomon Islandsn>

Before: Palmer J.

Criminal Case No: 028 of 1995

Sentence: 27^th August 1999

lass="MsoNormal" style="mar="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">

PALM: The accused has been conviconvicted of two very serious offences in our Penal Code, each carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The accused has lost the benefit of a guilty plea in that a trial had been held. He has a list of previous convictions including offences of burglary and had been to prison on a number of occasions. His last conviction had just been served a couple of months back. Since then he had been remanded in custody till today.

It will be noted this case had been delayed for a number of years o the fact this accused hadd had not co-operated with his Counsel in having a psychiatric report made on him. Also he had then evaded Police and so the matter could not be proceeded with as expected. The matter had been further complicated by the fact a psychiatrist was not available to prepare a report on him. Part of the blame for the delay must lie with this accused. The Court had given ample time for this accused to be examined as to his sanity but instead he had abused that opportunity and hence caused an unnecessary delay in the completion of this case.

I bear in mind the offences committed are separate. I also bear in mind the totality principle. The offence of rape committed against the victim was particularly nasty. It involved the use of force and violence and was repeated twice on the same night. These are aggravating features to this case. Bearing these principles in mind, a proper sentence would be three years for the burglary and five years for the rape. It could have been more for the rape offence had it been the only offence which this accused had been charged with. The proper order to make in the circumstances also would have been to have the penalties imposed made consecutive to each other so that the total sentence of imprisonment is 8 years. I consider that to be the appropriate sentence in this case.

I taken into account however the age of this acc a young man and the effect a long prison sentence wo would have on him; that he may become so institutionalised and may not fit into society again when he is released from prison. I also take into account the long period of time that had elapsed since the offence was committed and the delay in the trial period. When these factors are taken into account, I have decided to make the sentences concurrent in the circumstances of this accused. He will therefore only have to serve five years of his prison sentence with effect from today.

SENTENCE:

BURGLARY: 3 YEARS IMPRISMPRISONMENT (CONCURRENT)

2. RAPE: 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT.

TO SERVE ONLY FIVE (5) YEARS IMPRISONMENT WITH EFFECT FROM DAOM DATE OF SENTENCE.

THE COURT.