Regina v Oma [2011] SBHC 72; HCSI-CRC 144 of 2010 (17 August 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Criminal Jurisdiction

REGINA

V

JOHN OMA

Date of Hearing: 14th July 2011
Date of Judgment: 17th August 2011

Mrs. N. Kesaka for the Crown.
Mr. G. Gray for the accused.

SENTENCE

Apaniai, PJ:

Introduction

1. The accused was originally charged with the offence of murder. It was alleged that the accused caused the death of his elder brother, Sam Oma ("deceased"), at Tumagulu village, Tasimboko district, North East Guadalcanal, on the 22nd June 2009.
   
2. However, the charge was later reduced to manslaughter. The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and he was accordingly convicted. He now appears before this court for sentence.
   

The facts

3. According to the agreed facts, the deceased was sitting with his family outside their house at Tumagulu village chewing betel nut and telling stories. That was at about 10.30 pm on 22nd June 2009.
   
4. The accused then approached the deceased and angrily asked the deceased why he did not attend the family meeting that was arranged for the previous day, that is, Sunday 21/06/09. The accused then swore at the deceased. The accused was drunk at that time.
   
5. The deceased explained to the accused that he did not attend the meeting because he had a visitor at that time. The deceased then asked the accused to go back to his house while at the same time promising the accused that they would sort out the matter later when the accused was sober.
   
6. The accused left but then returned about three minutes later to where the deceased and his family were sitting. The accused had a small silver knife in his hand at that time. He then challenged the deceased to a fight. In the process, he kicked a piece of iron sheet which was lying close to where the deceased's wife was sitting.
   
7. The deceased became angry and threw a torch at the accused. The torch landed on the accused's head inflicting injury to the accused's head.
   
8. The accused moved back from the deceased but the deceased followed the accused whereupon a brief fight took place between the deceased and the accused in the dark.
   
9. The deceased then rushed back to where his family was sitting and said that the accused had stabbed him with a knife and that he was going to die. He showed his wife the wound which was located on his abdomen.
   
10. The deceased then went and picked a piece of firewood intending to go back to the accused but fell down.
    
11. The deceased was rushed to Grove clinic but he died on the way to the clinic.
    
12. No post mortem was carried out on the deceased but the body was examined by Dr. Roy Maraka who found a wound on the upper quadrant of the abdomen measuring 21 x 9 mm. He also drained out 900 mls of blood from the wound. Dr. Roy also observed that the stab penetrated 7 cm through the deceased's abdominal cavity.
    
13. The accused was also taken by the police to the National Referral Hospital where he was treated for the wound inflicted on his head by the torch thrown at him by the deceased. He was admitted and remained in hospital from 23rd to 26th June 2009.
    
14. In the accused's medical report, it was reported that the accused had a rugged laceration to the forehead and bilateral orbital swellings as well as multiple lacerations to his lips. An ex ray to the skull showed minimal depressed fracture of the frontal bone but required no surgical treatment.
    
15. The accused was arrested and placed into custody on 27th June 2009 and has since remained in custody until now.
    

Plea in mitigation

16. A number of matters have been urged upon the court in mitigation. It was said that the accused and the deceased are brothers. The deceased was the 1st born in the family and that the accused is his younger blood brother. It was also said that a reconciliation ceremony had already been held among the family members during which compensation had been paid and that relationships have now returned to normal.
    
17. In addition, it was also said that the accused is 37 years old; that he is married with 6 children; that he is the sole bread winner in the family; that prior to the incident, he had held various positions of responsibility within his community and that he is sorry for what he had done to his brother.
    

Comparative sentences

18. A number of case authorities have been provided by both counsel for the accused and the Crown for the purpose of showing the range of sentences which have previously been imposed for manslaughter cases in this jurisdiction. I am grateful to counsel for doing so.
    
19. These cases show that these sentences range from 2 years to 10 years and that each case depended very much on its particular circumstances.
    
20. Some of these cases are almost similar to the present case. For instance, in R v Lengaina[1], the accused was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for causing the death of the deceased who was his blood brother. In that case, the deceased got angry with the accused whom the deceased had accused of damaging his truck. A fight took place during which the accused inflicted wounds to the deceased which led to his death. The fight took place at night and the accused had used a bush knife during the fight. The deceased was rushed to hospital but died on the way. The accused had no previous convictions and had pleaded guilty to the charge. A reconciliation ceremony was also held to reconcile the family together again.
    
21. In R v Wakio and Manehai[2], the two accuseds and the deceased were also blood brothers. In that case, the deceased, who had some mental disorders, had seriously injured one of their own brothers and was about to assault their mother when the two accuseds assaulted him in their attempt to defend their mother. During the assault, the deceased received injuries from which he died. The accuseds were first offenders and had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. They were sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
    
22. In R v Patricia Melvin Kala[3], the accused caused the death of her husband by stabbing him with a knife after a row over drinks. She had pleaded guilty at first opportunity and she had no previous convictions. She was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
    
23. In R v Tuanitete[4], the accused killed his brother with a rake. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
    

The present case

24. In the present case, the accused is the younger brother of the deceased. The argument started over a dispute which could have been easily settled peacefully.
    
25. Furthermore, the accused was under the influence of alcohol when he approached the deceased and confronted him. In the majority of the manslaughter cases referred to by counsel, alcohol had played a major part in the incidents.
    
26. Being under the influence of alcohol, in my view, is not a mitigating factor. It is an aggravating factor. People who take alcohol in order to settle scores must accept the consequences of their actions and expect no leniency from the courts when it comes to sentencing. Similarly, those who decide to settle scores while under the influence of alcohol must not expect leniency for the consequences of their actions. It is all very well for accused persons to blame alcohol for their conduct and hold reconciliation ceremonies after a person has lost his life. Life is precious and, once lost, it can never be recovered. Regrets may be expressed after a life had been lost and reconciliation ceremonies can be held and compensations paid, but for the person whose life has been terminated, all these things are of no use to him. His life has been prematurely terminated. If he were to talk from his grave, I am sure he would say that he prefers to have his life back more than hosting of reconciliation ceremonies or payment of compensations or expression of regrets or saying apologies by those responsible for ending his life.
    
27. In the present case there are a number of aggravating factors that must be taken into account. These include the fact that the accused was under the influence of alcohol and it was he who started the argument. Also, he had no knife when the argument started, but then went back to his house and got one and then came back and challenged the deceased to a fight. Furthermore, he provoked the deceased into action when he kicked a piece of iron roofing which landed close to the deceased's wife. What started as a dissatisfaction on the part of the accused for the failure by the deceased to turn up for a family meeting ended up with the deceased losing his life. Having regard to those aggravating factors, the starting point for this case is 7 years imprisonment.
    
28. However, I have taken into account the mitigating factors pleaded on behalf of the accused. He has no previous conviction. He had held a number of important positions in the community and in his church before the incident. He has a family to care for, including those of the deceased. He has pleaded guilty to the charge. A reconciliation ceremony was held and compensation paid. For those factors I grant him a reduction of 2½ years.
    
29. The accused is therefore sentenced to 4½ years imprisonment to be back dated to the time when the accused was arrested and taken into custody.
    

THE COURT

Justice James Apaniai
Puisne Judge

---

^[1] CRC No. 425 of 2005
^[2] CRC No. 19 of 1998
^[3] CRC No. 17 of 1999
^[4] CRC No. 29 of 1992