Regina v Banga [2014] SBHC 44; HCSI-CRC 264 of 2012 (2 April 2014)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Maina, J)

Criminal Jurisdiction

Criminal Case No: 264 of 2012

REGINA

v.

PETER BANGA

Date of Hearing: 24th – 28th March 2014
Date of Judgment: 2nd April 2014

For Defence: Mr. Kalu S
For Respondent: Ms. A Driu

SENTENCE

Maina J:

Introduction

The accused Peter Banga pleaded guilty and convicted of the offence of Grievous Harm contrary to Section 226 of the Penal Code.

Defence Submission

Counsel Solomon Kalu for the accused in mitigation submits the accused is to be sentenced for causing grievous harm to his father. He conceded that the offence warranted an immediate custodial sentence. The only issue is for the Court to determine the term of sentence.

He submitted the factors for the Court to take into account when considering the sentence for the accused.

1. The pre-sentence remand period
2. The circumstance of the defendant's offending
3. Mitigating factor
4. Sentencing precedents
   

Counsel in relation to the circumstances of the accused submits defendant is 18 years old. He was reacting to the bad treatment to him by his father i.e. refuse to give food, telling the accused to leave the house and father said he is not his son.

Counsel submits that this is a domestic crime and family settlement or reconciliation among them has been done.

Counsel further submits that sentencing precedents ranges from 9 months to 9 years but most with 2 years' imprisonment.

Prosecution Submission

Counsel for the crown submits on the sentencing principles and discussions on the cases as in R v Kelly Iroga (2013) SBHC 128 and Court of Appeal R v Kada & Others (2008) SBCA 9.

With the aggravating factors the counsel submits that the defendant was armed with a weapon namely the bush knife, the injury at the arm which the father undergo surgery on two occasions. Counsel seeks the Court to impose a deterrence sentence.

In this jurisdiction the sentencing principles is settled by the cases referred to by the crown and defence counsels. An importantly aspect of consideration is the cases are to be considered or determined on their own merits.

I give credit for a guilty plea and that reflects remorseful on part of the defendant. I noted and take into account the victim has reconciled with the defendant also he has no previous conviction.

With deterrence, the fact that accused has spent more than a year or taken into custody since 21st May 2012 without any bail is itself deterrence, a set off with any sentence.

A distinguishing feature in this case is that the victim is the father of the defendant. And what arose to the incident according to defence was the father's attitude towards his son, the defendant. The father refused to give food to his son and chased him out from the house.

Taking into account all the matters that have been raised in submission to the Court, it is my view that a custodial sentence is appropriate.

The accused is sentenced to prison for three years. The period spent in custody is to be taken into account.

Orders of the Court:

1. Impose sentence of three years imprisonment
2. The period spent in custody to be deducted from the sentence.
   

..................................................................
Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge