Regina v Maesala [2013] SBHC 111; HCSI-CRC 229 of 2010 (19 July 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Jurisdiction

REGINA

-v-

COLLIN MAESALA

Date of hearing: 15th July 2013
Date of Judgment: 19th July 2013

Ms. L. Fineanganofo for the Crown.
Mr. N. Galo for the prisoner.

SENTENCE

Apaniai, PJ:

Introduction.

1. The prisoner was charged with manslaughter under section 199(1) of the Penal Code. It is alleged that the prisoner caused the death of Clive Panda ("deceased"), at the Sawane Plaza (also known as Auki Plaza) ("Plaza") in Auki, Malaita province, on the 29th October 2009.
   
2. The prisoner was arraigned on the 15th July 2013 and pleaded guilty to the charge. He now appears for sentence.
   

The facts.

3. The agreed facts can be summarized as follows.
   
4. The deceased was 18 years old at the time of his death while the prisoner, who was a security officer at the Plaza, was about 50 years of age.
   
5. At about midday on the 29th October 2009, the deceased and Leslie Lafuri ("Leslie") along with Teddy Kafo ("Teddy") had consumed a carton of beer and then walked to the Plaza.
   
6. When they came to the Plaza, Leslie wanted to urinate at the side of the Plaza but was warned by the prisoner not to do so. Leslie, Teddy and the deceased then proceeded to a bottle shop located also within the Plaza. The prisoner followed them at a distance.
   
7. The deceased then went to the side of the bottle shop and urinated there. On seeing that, the prisoner approached the deceased and asked whether he had urinated at the side of the shop. The deceased nodded his head indicating that he did.
   
8. Upon that admission by the deceased, the prisoner slapped the deceased in the face. The force of the slap caused the deceased to fall backward on to the concrete slab where he was standing thereby hitting his head against the slab and causing head injuries from which he died at 4am the next day.
   
9. According to a post mortem examination by Dr. Gupta Rajiv conducted on 31st October 2009, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest caused by the fracture to the skull and hematoma inside the cranial cavity both of which were the result of the deceased's falling backward and hitting his head against the concrete slab.
   

Plea in mitigation.

10. In mitigation, counsel for the prisoner submitted a number of factors for consideration by the court.
    
11. Counsel urged the court to take into account the fact that the prisoner had no previous convictions and therefore was a man with a clean criminal record; the fact that he had co-operated with the police during investigations; the fact that no weapon was used in the assault on the deceased; the fact that the assault consisted of only a single slap to the deceased's face; the fact that no pre-planning was involved; and, the fact that the prisoner had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity thereby saving the court the time that could have been wasted had a trial occurred.
    
12. Counsel further submitted that a reconciliation ceremony had been held between the families of both the prisoner and the deceased immediately after the incident and that at the ceremony the sum of $20,000.00 and 7 strings of customary shell money (Tafuli'ae) was paid by the prisoner's family to the deceased's family as compensation for the death of the deceased. It is submitted that the compensation payment has now re-established normal relationships between the two families.
    
13. In addition, it was also said that the prisoner is now 54 years of age and that that he is married with 8 children, one of whom is still an infant.
    

Aggravating features.

14. In this case, as in any other manslaughter case, a vital aggravating feature is the fact that a human life has been lost as a result of the prisoner's criminal conduct. This factor must always be reflected in the sentence.
    
15. Another aggravating feature of this case, which must also be considered, is the force used by the prisoner when he slapped the deceased. It was agreed that the deceased fell backward and landed on the back of his head on the concrete slab. This reflects the extent of force applied by the prisoner when he slapped the deceased in the face. That force must be quite substantial. The slapping was quite unnecessary and was an unlawful act on the part of the prisoner.
    
16. But of course the seriousness of the slapping is mitigated by the fact that it was the deceased who prompted the prisoner into acting the way he did when he, the deceased, urinated on the premises which it was the prisoner's duty to protect.
    

Comparative sentences.

17. A number of case authorities have been cited by both counsel for the prisoner and counsel for the Crown for the purpose of indicating the range of sentences previously imposed in relation to manslaughter cases in this jurisdiction. I am grateful to counsel for doing so.
    
18. Of course, there is no mathematical formula for determining the appropriate sentence in any given case. The best that a judge can do is to consider the mitigating and aggravating features of each case and have regard to sentences imposed in previous cases, which have been committed in like or similar circumstances. Needless to say, each case must depend on its particular circumstances. The sentences imposed in each of those cases have reflected the particular circumstances of each case.
    
19. Out of the various cases cited by counsel, there are three cases, which resemble closely to the present case and which I consider as appropriate to refer to. They are Regina v Daowea[1] ("Daowea"), Regina v Madada[2] ("Madada") and Regina v Bennett[3] ("Bennett").
    
20. In Daowea, the accused was charged with the manslaughter of Margaret Ngosonatabu ("deceased") at Lungga on the outskirts of Honiara. The brief facts of that case are that the deceased was drunk and was sitting with two other girls when the accused arrived. It seems that the accused may have earlier told the deceased that there would be a sisi dance at Lungga and the deceased had arrived there only to find that there was no sisi dance. On seeing the accused, the deceased became angry and swore at the accused. She started assaulting the accused by kicking the accused and slapping him in the face. She also shot him with a bottle of beer, which she was holding. The accused lost his temper and chased the deceased. He caught up with the deceased and kicked her causing the injuries from which the deceased later died. There was no weapon used by the accused in the attack. The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
    
21. In Madada, the accused had an argument with his wife (deceased) over an alleged failure by the deceased to mend a tear in the accused' shirt. The deceased told the accused that she was not able to mend the tear due to the fact that the sewing machine was not working. It appeared that the accused did not accept this excuse. He got angry and punched the deceased in her ribs causing a rupture in her spleen. The ruptured spleen had led to internal bleeding which ultimately caused the deceased's death. No weapon was used in the attack. The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
    
22. In Bennett, the accused and the deceased had been drinking together near or at a restaurant at Munda station, Western Province, at about 10pm on the 14th April 2010. They got into an argument, which led to the accused punching the deceased on his chest. The punch caused the deceased to fall backwards thereby hitting his head against a Telekom cement box which was close-by. The deceased was taken to Helena Goldie Hospital but died two days later (16th April 2010) from his head injuries. The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The court had stated that in that case a starting point of 6 ½ years would be appropriate. However, in the light of the failure by the prosecution to progress the case in a fair and reasonable manner and the fact that the accused had been ready since 2011 to plead guilty to manslaughter, the court had imposed a sentence of 3 ½ years imprisonment.
    
23. Other cases have also been referred to by counsel, for instance, Regina v Banisi[4] where the accused was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 3 ½ years imprisonment and Regina v Lawrence[5], where the accused was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 4 years.
    
24. Balancing the aggravating features of this case against the mitigating factors and having regard to the range of sentences imposed in respect of the manslaughter cases as referred to above, it is my opinion that the appropriate sentence in this case is one of 3 years imprisonment.
    
25. The prisoner is therefore sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. The 177 days the prisoner had spent on remand, as well as the 4 days since Monday 15th July 2013 when the prisoner was taken into custody, shall be deducted from the 3-year sentence.
    

THE COURT

JAMES APANIAI
PUISNE JUDGE

---

^[1] [2006] SBHC 60; HCSI-CRC 004 0f 2006 (5 July 2006).
^[2] [2008] SBHC 98; HCSI-CRC 83 of 2008 (13 November 2008).
^[3] HC-SI CRC No. 70 of 2013.
^[4] [2000] SBHC 73; HCSI-CRC 37 of 1999 (25 July 1999)
^[5] [1993] SBHC 85; HCSI-CRC 98 of 1993 (5 November 1993).