Regina v Emmanuel [2010] SBHC 21; HCSI-CRC 339 of 2007 (14 May 2010)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua, J)

Criminal Case No. 339 of 2007

REGINA

V

REBECCA EMMANUEL

Date of Hearing: 10th May 2010
Date of Judgment/Sentence: 14th May 2010

R.Olutimayin for the Crown
P Cavenagh and G. Grey for the Accused

SENTENCE

Mwanesalua, J: Rebecca Emmanuel the accused, was charged with one count of infanticide, contrary to section 206 of the Penal Code (Cap. 26) ("the code"). She pleaded guilty to the offence on 10th May 2010. The court entered a guilty against her upon her own plea and convicted her of the offence accordingly. The hearing was then adjourned for today to pass sentence on her. But first, the facts of her case, and the mitigating factors considered in her favour.

The accused began her education in a school in the village. In 2006, her parents enrolled her to do Form 6 at Honiara High School, because of her aptitude for higher education. They paid for her education expenses at the school. In return, the accused looked forward to getting a job after leaving school to earn money to help her family back in the village. But while she was at school, she formed a relationship with a young man, and became pregnant. She did not tell the relatives she lived with in Honiara about her pregnancy, but kept it secret to herself.

On 30th September 2006, she resided with her aunty at Marble Street in Honiara. On the morning of that day, she went to a toilet and gave birth to a male infant. Being ashamed of having an illegitimate child, and the consequential dismissal from the school, against the expectation of her family and herself to get a good education, she suffocated the child by pushing her finger into the mouth of the child until it stopped breathing. She then wrapped the child with clothing and threw it into a creek, at the Mataniko River.

Sometime later, the child was discovered, and the police were called to the scene. The police arrived and took the child with the accused to the Hospital. The child was placed at the morgue, while the accused was admitted for treatment on the injuries she sustained during child birth.

The report of the doctor who attended the accused on admission at the Hospital noted, that, the accused was anxious, exhausted and traumatic, but orientated. Further, it was also noted that the accused had suicidal tendencies, and the doctor made sure, that she was closely watched by duty nurses until she was discharged. The doctor then recommended that the accused be assessed by a psychiatrist to determine her mental state.

Another doctor conducted an autopsy on the body of the child. He found the lungs to be "pink and spongy". The doctor concluded from these findings, that the child was born alive but later died. However, the cause of death could not be determined.

Two psychiatrist reports were provided to the defence on the mental state of the accused’s mind. The first report was made by Dr. Orotaloa on 26th May 2008. The doctor’s opinion was that: "he believes that Miss Emmanuel was not psychologically disturbed at the time of giving birth".

The second report was made by Dr. Brett, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist in Perth, Australia. He made the report after conducting a clinical interview with the accused by video assessment on 9th September 2008, and a telephone interview with an interpreter on 14th October 2008. (Attachment B). Extracts from Dr. Brett’s report are set out as follows:

"There was evidence that Ms Emmanuel was in denial of her pregnancy and this is consistant with that described in the literature as psychological concealment of pregnancy. It appears that she was genuinely surprised when she delivered the baby in the toilet. It is not unusual for mothers who have psychological concealment of pregnancy to deliver their children in toilets as they are unaware they are in labour. It appears that following the delivery she had an episode of dissociation and is unable to recall what happened at that time. Dissociation is defined as temporary but drastic modification of a person’s character or of one’s senses of personal identity that take place to avoid emotional distress. It appears that following the delivery her mental state was worsened and she had become depressed.... Her aunt gave collateral history that she had changed significantly since the incident and had become much more withdrawn and isolated.

It is my conclusion that Ms Emmanuel had a disturbance of the mind, which was caused by the effect of giving birth to her child. I believe that at the time of the alleged act Ms Emmanuel’s mind was disturbed".

There is consensus by counsels for the crown and the defence that the accused had committed her offence, when her mind was disturbed by the effect of giving birth to her child. Both of them pointed to mitigating factors which it may be take into account in favour of the accused.

Infanticide is a very serious offence. That is reflected by the sentence prescribed for it by law. It carries a maximum sentence of up to life imprisonment. However, a shorter term may be passed as stipulated under section 24 (2) of the code. The length of the term to be imposed, will vary from case to case, according to their own facts, and the mitigating factors which may be taken in favour of the accused.

The accused here pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity during the trial. That is to say, during the arraignment. In the view of this court, that demonstrates genuine remorse and sorrow by the accused for her action in causing the death of her infant. In R –v- John Mark Tau and 16 others[1], His Lord Palmer CJ stated quote "...a plea of guilty demonstrates very clearly in my view a person who is not only remorseful, and is sorry for his actions, but is courageous enough to face up to his own actions and the consequences that normally flows from it" end of quote.

The accused cooperated with the police during the investigation into her case. She made admissions to the killing of her child in the record of interview. That is a mitigating factor in her favour. That saves a great deal of time and resources for the police in the investigation of her case.

The accused has no previous convictions until the present one. She currently works and pays the school fees for her brothers and sisters. Mr. Folo Talu, former MP, Tribal Chief, and Pastor provided a letter of support for the accused. In his letter he states: " Rebecca was a shy girl during her teenage years. However, when she attained her secondary education, her parents despite their struggle to make ends meet, put all their hope in her future. The family did bank on her education until the breaking news of the infanticide episode.... Rebecca is the only member in the family to work for a salary that meets her brothers and sisters schools fees"(Attachment c).

The accused has also been doing Sunday school work for her community, despite her busy work schedule as an untrained teacher at a school in her home province. In a letter of support, Pastor Ului states:".....I have known her as a member of our local church for the past twenty years. She is a very young lady, from New Rove village in North Malaita.... She have some quality leadership in youth & Sunday school in our church. She is doing great work in our community".

It is apparent from Dr. Brett’s report that the accused suffocated her child when her mind was disturbed. That frame of mind may occur to any other girl or woman during child birth. She admitted causing the death of her child and pleaded guilty. The manner in which the child met its death would remain in her mind for many years. It seems that her immediate family had forgiven her for the wrong she had done. This was apparent by their presence with her before the court.

This case warrants the imposition a short sharp imprisonment sentence, having regard to the mitigating factors taken into account in favour of the accused, and mental state she was in at the time she committed her offence. The 35 days she was in custody at Rove Prison after she was arrested is to be reflected in that sentence.

Orders of the Court.

1. Rebecca Emmanuel is sentenced to one month imprisonment
   
2. The accused is sentenced to the rising of the court.
   

THE COURT

---

^[1] HC CRC No. 58 of 1993.