Regina v Tarauva [2007] SBHC 3; HCSI-CRC 034 of 2007 (8 March 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 34 of 2007

REGINA

– v-

WILLIE TARAUVA

Date of Sentence: 8 March 2007

Mr N. Mirou for the Crown
Mr P. Southey for the defendant

SENTENCING DECISION

Cameron PJ

1	Willie Tarauva appears for sentence on the offence of manslaughter under Section 199 (2) of the Penal Code, having entered a plea of guilty to that charge on 20 February 2007.
2	It relates to the death of Laisa Tangithia on 11 December 2004, when she was attacked by the defendant with a bottle. The deceased, who was a 40 year old woman, is survived by several grown up children.
3	The defendant was originally charged with murder, but on 20 February 2007 and before trial he pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and the murder charge was withdrawn.
4.	The events took place at a church fundraising event in East Guadalcanal, where alcohol was on sale.
5.	There was a physical altercation among a number of people who had been listening to speeches. This was apparently sparked by the deceased’s brother, Mathew Lee, having been asked to stop interjecting during the speeches. He persisted, and a fight ensued between a number of people, including the defendant and Mathew Lee.
6.	Apparently, the deceased came to the aid of her brother Mathew Lee, who was on the ground, by attempting to pull him out the fight.
7.	It was at this point that the defendant armed himself with or was handed a beer bottle and struck the victim over the head with it several times. The force of the blows was sufficient to break the bottle, whereupon the defendant grabbed the victim by the neck and lacerated the victim’s left arm, causing severe bleeding.
8.	The fight stopped after the victim was injured. She was taken to hospital but was dead on arrival.
9.	It is clear that the defendant was intoxicated at the time.
10.	In this case, the use of the bottle as a weapon against a defenceless woman, in what I consider was a sustained attack (in the sense she was struck several times) is a seriously aggravating feature.
11.	I take the following mitigating matters into account:
	(a)	The defendant, a 27 year old single man, has no previous convictions.
	(b)	The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter on what I accept was the earliest reasonable opportunity in all the circumstances.
	(c)	In a letter written to the Court (Exhibit 5), the defendant says he did not intend to kill the victim – I accept this, as did the Crown in reducing the charge to manslaughter.
	(d)	Related to this, I accept there was no premeditation by the defendant, and that it was a spur of the moment decision to attack the victim.
	(e)	In that same letter, and to an extent in his statement to Police two days after the incident, the defendant expressed his remorse for what he had done – I accept that he is genuine in this respect.
	(f)	A custom reconciliation meeting between the defendant’s family and the deceased’s family took place on 3 December 2005.
11	I note from the defendant’s letter to the Court that he suffers from asthma. I bring this specifically to the attention of the prison authorities.
12.	I have heard submissions on the length of imprisonment appropriate, bearing in mind that with manslaughter the range of circumstances vary greatly.
13.	I have also had regard to various authorities, including the Court of Appeal decision in Bina v. Regina (2006) SBCA 16, where a sentence of 4 years for manslaughter was imposed.
14.	The present case is more serious than that case because this case involves the use of a weapon.
15.	Taking all matters into account, the defendant is convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. I direct under Section 24 (5) of the Penal Code that this sentence shall be deemed to have commenced on the date that the defendant was taken into custody, which I am told was 12 December 2004.
THE COURT