Regina v Galo [2014] SBHC 54; HCSI-CRC 3 of 2014 (15 May 2014)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 03 of 2014

REGINA

-V-

DAVID GALO

(Maina, J)

Date of Hearing: 13th May 2014
Date of Judgment: 15th May 2014

For Prosecution: M. Manata
For Accused: N. Galo

SENTENCE

Maina J:

Accused David Galo was initially charged with Murder contrary to Section 200 of the Penal Code. After talk between the parties, crown filed a nollie initial charge and new information on manslaughter contrary to Section 199 (1) Penal Code was filed in the Court.

On arraignment, accused pleaded guilty on the charge of Manslaughter contrary to Section 199 (1) of the Penal Code. He was then convicted on own plea for the offence.

Facts

On the 1st August 2013, a Court delivered a decision on a land dispute between the people of Gwa'adoe village and the villages of Alakowane. The decision was in favour of Gwa'adoe tribe.

At about 7pm on that day, a group of men from Alakowane village came to Anokelo village and accused David Galo was with them. Deceased Peter Arukwai was at his house at Anokelo village and heard a disturbance was coming towards Misitana's house. The deceased went to check the community vehicle which was parked close to the direction where the disturbance was coming from. He held a torch light in his hands.

When the deceased flashed the torch at the defendant's face, the defendant said to the deceased in an angry tone "iu onefala too ia, iu no man ia". Defendant moved towards the deceased and kicked him below his abdomen with his boots. Defendant kicked him again. Deceased fell on the ground after the defendant kicked him. He was assisted by the defendant's brothers namely Mani and Moses to his house. The pain and discomfort on his lower abdomen continued and so he had to be transported to Kilu'ufi Hospital the same night.

Deceased Peter Arukwai died on the morning of 3rd August 2013. A post mortem report was conducted by Dr. Jason Diau on 4th August 2013 at the hospital. It shows the cause of death was, due to severe Hypovolemic shock with associated septic shock resulting in multi-organ dysfunctional syndrome. Also due to his internal organ perforations as a result of the blunt abdominal trauma.

The manslaughter case with no weapons used

At this juncture or before I will come to the matters raised in submission and mitigation, I will first refer to the case authorities cited by counsel for the accused. In his submission, Counsel for defence made references to manslaughter cases that will assist with appropriate range for sentencing in this case. He said the range of sentence in manslaughter cases where weapon is not used as in the present case is between two years to four years.

He refers to four cases:

1. R v Calisto Pasirivo Criminal Case No. 114 of 2004, the deceased died as a result of two kicks and two punches; and he was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
   
2. Regina v Daowea (2006) SBHC 60; HCSI – CRC 004 of 2006 (5th July 2006), the deceased was a female. She was kicked causing the fatal injury that resulted to death and the sentence imposed on the accused was three years.
   
3. R v Lensley Criminal Case No. 3 of 1997, the prisoner kicked the deceased powerfully in the face and the deceased fall backward and sustained serious head injury. The Court imposed three and half years.
   
4. Regina v Taganepari (2011) SBHC 80, the prisoner slapped, pushed and kicked the deceased and died a little while of a ruptured spleen. The Court imposed three years for manslaughter.
   

Mitigation

Defence counsel Galo submitted the factors for the Court to take into account when considering the sentence for the accused. They are the guilty plea as it serves time of the Court and resources, pre-sentence remand period, circumstance of the defendant's offending, mitigating factors, his ages; and sentencing precedents. Also there was no pre-planning and no weapon used.

Counsel submitted that having regard to the defendant's background, mitigating factors the non-aggravating character of the assault and sentence precedents, a term of three years' imprisonment is appropriate with the time in custody to be taken into account.

Counsel Manata for the crown submitted the antecedent for the accused, age is unknown, adult, single and unemployed. He has a previous conviction of going arm in the public place (no sentence provided for the offence). Accused has been in custody since 4th August 2013 and approximately 251 days. He has pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter. With the aggravating factors and previous conviction the appropriate sentences for this present case range from 5 – 6 years imprisonment.

Aggravating Factors

Crown counsel submitted that a life of human has been taken away as a result of the lawful act and made reference to Regina v Maesala (2013) SBHC 111. The unprovoked nature of assault on defenseless person and the kicking of the deceased twice on the lower abdomen boots as considered in Regina v Pasirivo (2005) SBHC 101 and Regina v Faisi (2006) SBHC 131.

She said factors exists in this case and urge the Court to take into account.

I noted the factors and will be taken into account in the sentence and as usual the cases provide a range of sentence on similar cases.

The Case

In this sentence, I take into account and give credit for plea of guilty and previous convictions not taken into account as no sentence provided. Guilty pleas reflect remorseful on part of the defendants. It also services resources for full trial.

I noted and take into account the compensation/proposed reconciliation by the parties. In our society it is desirable to engage on such arrangements on the reasons as highlighted by His Lordship Palmer CJ in the case Regina v Daowea (2006) SBHC 60; HCSI – CRC 004 of 2006.

Another aspect of compensations and reconciliations is to restore the peace and harmony among the families, relatives or communities of the parties.

Counsel for the crown in her submission stated that the Court should also take into account the hardship or impact on the family of the deceased which she present to the Court with the submission. But counsel for the defence contended that it is not proper to do so as the accused is only to be punished for the unlawful act he had done and not the hardship or impact on the family of the deceased.

It is proper and relevant on sentence for the hardships and impact experiences and should be taken into account.

It is the general principle in common law to adopt an overall discount taking into account all the matters that have been raised in the submissions to the Court to ensure it is fair in the circumstances of this case. And I accordingly do so.

From the circumstances of this case, the appropriate custodial sentence ranges of 3 – 4 years imprisonment. And accordingly, I sentence accused David Galo to prison for four (4) years.

Orders of the Court

1. Four (4) years imprisonment.
2. The period spent in custody to be deducted from the sentence.
   

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