R v Fo'oka [2014] SBHC 5; HCSI-CRC 250 of 2012 (3 February 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
PALLARAS J

Criminal Case Number 250 of 2012

R

v

PETER DAVID FO'OKA

Coram: PALLARAS J
Crown: Ms. L. J. Fineanganofo
Defence: Mr. A. Keseka

Hearing Dates: 9th December, 2013
Verdict Delivered: 13th December, 2013
Sentence Delivered: 3rd February, 2014

SENTENCE

1. On 13th December 2013, you were convicted of one count of murder contrary to Section 200 of the Penal Code [Cap. 26] ("the Code").
   
2. You were born on 2nd December 1995.
   
3. While you now present for sentencing in this Court as an adult, at the time of committing the offence you were 17 years and 5 months of age.
   
4. You were therefore then a "young person" in terms described in s.2 of the Juvenile Offenders Act 1972 ("the Act").
   
5. While there is some ambiguity in the Act as to whether for sentencing purposes the relevant age should be the age at the time of the offending or the age when sentence is passed[1], the settled view in Solomon Islands seems to be that the relevant age to be considered should be that at the time of the commission of the offence.
   
6. There has also been judicial discussion as to whether the mandatory provision of s.200 of the Code overrides the provisions of the Act[2], in particular the provisions of s.13 of the Act.
   
7. For present sentencing purposes, I will sentence you on the basis that the relevant age to consider is your age at the time of the offending and further, that the provisions of the Act apply to you. More particularly, the mandatory sentencing provisions of the Code are to be regarded as subservient to s.13 of the Act.
   
8. Having been convicted of the offence of murder, a crime which is included in the Schedule of the Act as a "grave crime", the Court has the discretion to sentence you to a specified period of detention or imprisonment.
   
9. I have carefully considered that the Act provides a special regime for dealing with offenders such as you and requires that you be treated differently from an adult who has committed the same crime. Rehabilitation and the interests of the offender are considerations to be given considerable weight.
   
10. In that regard I take into account –
    
    1. that you are still a relatively young person;
    2. that you are a first time offender;
    3. that you have admitted killing the deceased;
    4. that you were responding to what you took to be insulting and offensive language from your wife.
       
11. Against that must be considered that you have wantonly and viciously taken a young life. At just 19 years of age, she had barely begun her life and had many years to look forward to. You have deprived her of that and have deprived her family of the joy of watching her grow into a woman and possibly a mother. Your attack on her was extremely brutal and violent. You used an axe to savagely break her skull with such an intensity that I find that you clearly intended to kill her. The post mortem report describes injuries to her face, neck, back, upper limbs, abdomen, lower limbs and on the palms of both hands. Your explanation for how these injuries occurred is absurd and I reject it. She was totally defenceless and alone when you attacked her in what I find to be a most cowardly and craven manner.
    
12. Considering all of the circumstances of the case, including your relative youth and the sentencing philosophy contained in the Act, I find that a sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate penalty. You do not need reminding that but for the fact that you were just a few months from your 18th birthday when you killed your wife, you would be facing a sentence of life imprisonment.
    
13. The sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for a period of 9 years.
    

Order of the Court

That you be imprisoned for a period of 9 years and that the period of time already spent in custody be taken into account.

........................................................
THE COURT

---

^[1] See Pese v Regina [2008] SBCA 10; CA-CRAC 4 of 2008
^[2] Ibid at para 14 ff; also Kelly v Regina [2006] SBCA 21; CR-CRAC 19 of 2006