Regina v Kana [2001] SBHC 129; HC-CRC 161 of 2001 (31 July 2001)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 161 of 2001

REGINA

-V-

HARTON KANA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)

Hearing: 31st July 2001
Sentence: 31st July 2001

Director of Public Prosecutions for Prosecution
Mrs Titiulu for the Accused

Palmer J.: The Accused Harton Kana of Keara Village, Ranogga Island was convicted by the Gizo Magistrates Court on a charge of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to Vanarade Nisa on 8th June 2001. The victim at the time of commission of offence was his wife. A weapon, bush knife was used to inflict the injury. The facts indicate the knife was used on the victim a couple of times, on her back, right hand and her leg. The cut on her leg was serious. I have read the report of the Doctor that attended to her on admission to Gizo Hospital.

I have listened carefully to your Counsel’s submissions on behalf of your mitigation. I take note of the points she mentions in your favour and the cases she refers to for comparison purposes. I note at the outset this case is different from other cases. The circumstances in which this case occurred are different. They occurred in a domestic or family environment, emanating from an argument. This wasn’t a planned attack. It was more a spur of the moment thing. An argument had occurred due to some disagreements between you and your wife, and from that, one thing led to another. I note in your favour too that it wasn’t your intention to kill your wife. You could have easily done that if it was your intention as you had a knife with you at that time. But that is the sad thing about this kind of cases. Many times after the event, the offender appears in Court and says he or she never meant to cause serious harm or to kill their spouse. Fortunately, your wife was not killed by your actions or a more serious injury caused.

The important thing to note from all these however is that you do not have the right to attack your wife with a knife no matter how angry you may be. The same goes to any wife; they too do not have right to attack their husbands. The law sets a limit. Arguments and fights will always occur in any marriage situation and home, but the law says that these must be sorted out without resorting to weapons and having to fight with one another. Even the so-called ethnic tension could have been averted if people had been prepared to resort to other means to settling their grievances and arguments rather than resorting to weapons and fighting.

This case has been sent to this Court because the learned Magistrate felt a longer sentence than what he could impose was warranted. I have considered carefully the seriousness of this offence that a weapon was used and serious injury caused. However I can also distinguish it from other similar cases. I note you have been reconciled to your wife that this incident did not occur during a period of separation but within a family argument between the two of you. I note you are both young couples and still need to work very hard at your relationship; no marriage relationship is easy. I note your angry in-laws have destroyed your house and that you have two young children. I note in your favour your youth and that you have no previous convictions.

Taking all factors submitted in your favour by your Counsel and balancing it with the element of deterrence which I feel is very important here, that those who resort to weapons to assault their spouses must expect to go to prison, I am of the view that a custodial sentence must be imposed. A short sharp sentence in my respectful view is appropriate. I take particular note of the fact that you are reconciled to your wife, you have two young children to look after, that your wife is currently living with your relatives and that a long prison term might cause more harm to your marriage than rehabilitate you. You must address seriously your temper so that it does not cause any more problems for you. Convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment with immediate effect.

THE COURT