Regina v Aili [2009] SBHC 74; HCSI-CRC 74 of 2007 (15 July 2009)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 74 OF 2004

REGINA
THE CROWN

V

DAVID AILI
DEFENDANT

Date of Hearing: 8th July 2009
Date of Sentence: 15th July 2009

M. Coates for the Crown
G. Brown for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.

You have pleaded guilty to the offence of robbery contrary to section 293(1)(a) of the Penal Code. That offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and so it is classed as a very serious offence under our law. That means those who decide to commit such crimes will expect to be sent to prison for a long time. Every person in this country has an independent will, the power to choose to do right or to do wrong. This is what criminal liability is about, that a man is to be held accountable for the crimes committed under our law.

The law is like a light, a beacon, it sets the guidelines and limits of human behaviour and conduct in our society; the law says here and no further, but if you go further, the law will bite you. The law has power, it has teeth with which to bite; it can send people to prison and keep them there for a long time. Prison is not meant for law abiding citizens, it is a place for law breakers.

It has been alleged that you were in the company of a group of men armed with rifles when you arrived at the premises of Red Beach Enterprises Ltd at Ranadi in Honiara, on 14 July 2000 and robbed the victim of his vehicles and ransacked his warehouse. You took one of the vehicles, a blue Toyota 4-Runner and did not return it until February 2006. It certainly took you a long time to realise that what you had done was wrong and to return it. Part of being sorry involves restitution, putting right the damage or harm one has caused.

I note the aggravating features in your case. You were a police officer when you committed the offence. That is a very serious matter. A police officer is a man under oath; he is a man under authority. That means you are governed by the law and rules that applies to your job and your duty comes first. This nation needs police officers who will stand true to their oaths and their duty in times of crisis. Naturally you have been terminated from the Police Force.

You were in the company of a group of people some of whom were armed when you committed the offence. Further, you used threats to carry out the offence and the victim was intimidated and feared for his life. I note you did not carry any firearms yourself but that makes little difference in this instance.

The goods removed from the warehouse were never recovered, that means that the victim has suffered great loss. You and those in your group therefore ought to have compensated him for his loss. I note you eventually did return the vehicle but it took you nearly six years before you did that; that is a very long time.

I give credit for a guilty plea which reflects remorse and being sorry for what you have done.

I also take into account that you have no previous convictions.

Delay in the hearing and disposal of this case is a significant mitigating factor. The offence was committed on 14 July 2000 and has taken a total of nine years to be disposed of. As well, I note you have spent almost two years in pre-trial remand before being released on bail on 15th August 2005. Again that is a very long period to be remanded in custody pending trial.

I note that since your remand time in prison you have been active in rehabilitating yourself. You have been involved in Bible studies while in prison and on your release on bail, you continued with that; you are currently participating actively with one of the local churches in the City. That is to be commended. I have perused the character references written on your behalf and take note of them.

Being sorry not only entails apologising for ones wrongs but making an about-turn and moving on with one's life to do constructive and positive things. A thief for example should not only stop stealing but start working with his hands to do good and even to be able to give to others who may be in need[1]. This is what reformation and transformation is about. That even if a similar situation (which we hope will never happen) should recur, that you will not be involved in it again. To that extent, prospects of rehabilitation in your case has been demonstrably very good and is also an important mitigating factor.

I take note of your personal circumstances, that you are the main breadwinner in your family, that you are the one who is supporting your family; that not only your wife suffers from ill health but you also have a sick child to support, and that the family needs you.

In balancing the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors in this case, an important aspect to this case is the element of public deterrence. The circumstances of the offending must be taken into account. It occurred at a time when law and order had broken down. The element of public deterrence in my view therefore is important in that if a similar situation should arise the public must remember that anyone involved in breaking the law during such times must expect to go to prison for a long time and therefore must be able to think twice about breaking the law.

One of the co-accused in this case, Thompson Kilatu was sentenced to 5 years in prison backdated to 4 January 2009. Balancing all the factors in this case, I am satisfied a sentence of 3 years should be imposed. Having served a substantial part of the term in prison you are entitled to be released at the rising of the court and walk away a free man.

Orders of the Court:

1. Impose sentence of 3 years.
   
2. Period spent in custody to be taken into account.
   
3. The defendant having served a substantial part of that term in pre-trial custody is to be released on the rising of the Court.
   

The Court.

---

^[1] Ephesians 4:28