Regina v Paul - Sentence [2014] SBHC 37; HCSI-CC 141 of 2011 (21 May 2014)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Faukona J).

Criminal Case No. 141 of 2011.

REGINA

v.

PAUL MONA

Date of submission: 1st of May, 2014.
Date of Sentence: 21st May 2014.

Ms F. Joel for the Crown
Mr H. Fugui for the Accused

SENTENCE.

Faukona J: The accused Paul Mona was convicted of one charge of murder and one charge of unlawful wounding on 9th April 2014. The charge of murder was immediately dealt with. Submissions were then called for to assist the court decides on the appropriate sentence for unlawful wounding charge. The case was then adjourned to 1st May 2014 for submissions.

2. Unlawful wounding according to Section 229 of the Penal Code is a misdemeanour offence and carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

3. The incident took place in the early hours of Christmas day, about 4am or 5am in 2010. On Christmas eve the accused, the victim, relatives and friends gathered at Uimadaji village, South Malaita to celebrate Christmas eve. Major element of the celebrations was alcohol.

4. At early hours of the morning about 4am or 5am there was a scuffle in the lodge (boys house) owned by the accused. One named Suiga eventually shouted. The tone appeared to be in anguish and in need of help. The victim of this charge attended. At the scene he witnessed the accused was grapping PW1 Suiga. In an attempt to get him free the accused stabbed him on his right hand. The wound was a punctured from the inner arm and penetrated out to the outer arm, measured 4cm and outer arm in 3cm wide. 4 stitches inner arm and 3 stitches in the outer arm.

Aggravating factors:

5. The unpleasant result experienced by the families and small community at uimadaji village was because of alcohol consumption. There is evidence that alcohol was sold in the villages by unauthorized individuals. Police and authorities must ensure such illegal activities ceased and where possible prosecuted.

6. This is a case where the accused and the victim were drunk and a knife as a dangerous weapon was used to cause the wound on the victim's hand. The seriousness of the wound is described by the medical report briefly paraphrased in paragraph 4 above. The use of the knife was unlawful and was not necessary in the circumstances; however, it aggravates the offending.

Mitigating features:

7. At the time of offending the accused was eighteen years of age, a young and energetic man. He is a first offender and maintains his character save for the moment when the incident occurred. In his mitigation, the accused admits his action was stupid and a result from spontaneous bad judgment. He is willing to say sorry to the family of the victim and relatives of the deceased.

8. I also noted the father of the accused had spent substantive amount of money and valuables in terms of custom compensation. There were 7 pigs given, 2 homemade canoes, $1200.00 cash, 20 life chicken, timbers to complete a flooring of the house and 10 shell money. Custom compensation had been a consideration in determining the sentence in a given situation. And I consider that as useful here. Yet I have reminded myself that extravagant amount of compensation may tantamount to buying once innocence out of criminal responsibility. That has to be assessed against reasonable amount of compensation paid which genuinely reflect remorsefulness and contrite heart meant for renewing relationship and harmony living.

Sentencing tariffs:
Concurrent Sentence:

9. It has been agreed by both counsels that principle of totality ought to be applied in this case. Any sentence imposed in relation to the offence of unlawful wounding charge be concurrent to life imprisonment sentence imposed after conviction of the murder charge on 9/4/2014.

10. In respect to appropriate sentence applicable to this case, the Crown Counsel has submitted five case authorities to assist Court arrive at an appropriate sentence. In the case of R v Asuana[1] Ward CJ felt that the Magistrate attached too much importance on custom compensation. It was a nasty and serious attack on a relative who had been walking away. The Court imposed two and half years imprisonment.

11. In R v Cawa and Others[2], the accused pleaded guilty. The injury was caused by a punch where no evidence available to ascertain the extent of the seriousness of the injury, hence considered minor. The sentence is 12 month suspended to keep the peace.

12. In R v Gere[3], the accused pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding by using a knife to stab on the chest of victim. The wound was sutured and took eight days in hospital before discharge. The judge took in account 5½ years of delay before prosecution and sentenced for 18 months.

13. In R v Fanifaka[4] three accused were charged for attempt murder and unlawful wounding. Number of Victims suffered attack by the accused with knife and chisel. Victims suffered serious injuries. One of aggravating factors is use of weapons 2 years for unlawful wounding.

14. In R V Nguyen Van Thang where 4½ years was imposed. A knife was used. Medical report showed the seriousness of the wound. The wound was located in the posterior triangle near the base of the neck. The Doctor described the wound as life threatening with major blood vessel of the neck involved causing massive blood loss.

15. From the case authorities I have balanced out the issue of custom compensation payment to Asuana case. Custom compensation has been an element for consideration in determining sentence. The case draws a line that such as issue can be accepted as a consideration but not to attach too much on it. Other factors ought to be considered in collaboration.

16. This case can be distinguished from Cawa case because knife was used here and not a mere punch. It can also be distinguished from Gere's case because there was a guilty plea entered at first instance and not in respect of the accused in this case.

17. In Nguyen's case the location of the wound on the base of the neck was more serious and life threatening. Of course no compensation was paid because the case involved foreigners. But the accused showed remorse for the wrong he had done. Equitably Nguyen and the current accused were convicted after trial.

18. In all the case authorities' cited weapon was used to cause injuries except in Cawa's case. This accused pleaded not guilty as Nguyen which is different from the cases of Cawa and Gere. There was compensation paid in Asuana case and this case a feature not available in other four cases. In relation to seriousness, Nguyen's case is more serious than this one as I would evaluate. There was no delay in this case as in the case of Gere.

19. From various circumstances surrounding each case of which I consider, and the fact that the range of sentences for the offence of unlawful wounding was from 12 months suspension to 4½ years. That enables me to conclude after considering the aggravating factors and mitigating features that a 3 years sentence is appropriate. I therefore impose 3 years imprisonment to run concurrent to life imprisonment sentence imposed on 9th April 2014 for the charge of murder.

The Court.

---

^[1] [1990] SBHC; HC.CRC 034 of 1990 (12 October 1990).
^[2] [2012] SBHC 134; HCSI-CRC 405 of 2008 ....................... November 2012)
^[3] [2013] SBHC 19; HC-CRC 83 of 2008 (9 March 2013)
^[4] [1997]SBHC 31; HC-CRC 33 of 1996 (6 June 1997).