Regina v Tonafia [2016] SBHC 27; HCSI-CRC 267 of 2012 (17 February 2016)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)

Criminal Case Number 267 of 2012

REGINA

V

Johnson Tonafia

HEARING: 16th February 2016
Sentence: 17th February 2016

R. B. Talasasa (Jnr) and W. Vaiyu for the Crown
H. Lawry and D. Kwalai for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.

1. The defendant has entered a guilty plea to a charge of manslaughter following the filing of an amended information yesterday in which the original charge of murder was withdrawn and a lesser charge of manslaughter contrary to section 199(1) of the Penal Code was filed on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
   
2. The offence of manslaughter however remains as one of the more serious offences under our criminal law in this country, its gravity reflected in the maximum sentence of life imprisonment that can be imposed on conviction. The gravity in the criminality of the offence is recognised by the fact that a life has been unlawfully taken away suddenly.
   
3. There are of-course varying degrees of seriousness depending on the circumstances of each case, the offence, offender and the presence of aggravating and or mitigating factors. Each case is to be considered on its own merits to arrive at an appropriate sentence.
   
4. In this case, the facts of the offending revealed that the defendant attacked the deceased suddenly and unexpectedly with a knife that he had in his possession and inflicted grievous injuries to the head, right front chest, back and left palm. The post mortem report of the Doctor revealed that the cause of death was internal bleeding from the stab wound to the chest.
   
5. The facts revealed that the defendant was alone with the deceased at the time of the attack and that there were no eye witnesses of the attack until immediately after the fatal injuries had been inflicted. The facts revealed that there was nothing to suggest or indicate that the deceased was about to be attacked and it would seem that everything happened so suddenly but with disastrous consequences. By the time help arrived the damage had been done and the defendant seen walking away from the scene.
   
6. I have been referred to the report prepared by the Psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Orotaloa dated 15 November 2012. While this report was taken some 21 months after the incident it is still relevant in terms of assisting the court to understand that the defendant does have some mental health issues which would have been responsible it seems and provide explanation for the actions of the defendant for the unprovoked attack on the deceased. No other reasonable explanation has been provided.
   
7. The report does show that the defendant suffers from auditory hallucinations, that is, from hearing voices and instructions from other people. As well the report observes that the defendant had admitted to being controlled by outside forces, such as controlling how he feels, what he thinks and what he does regularly; this is described by the Psychiatrist as "passivity phenomenon".
   
8. I also note that since being incarcerated in prison, he has been given regular treatment for this condition. The report also refers to some explanations being provided by the defendant for the attack as a result of hearing voices and having been instructed to attack the deceased. Of significance to this end is the Doctor's report that this aspect of hearing voices still persists.
   
9. This is not an easy case to assess in terms of an appropriate sentence to be imposed. While on one hand I am satisfied he is taking regular medication while in prison, the risk remains that if released and he refuses or fails to continue with his medication, no one can predict the risk that the public or community will be exposed to in such situation if he does feel compelled to kill again. The potential of risk and harm to the public is not eased by the report of the Doctor in which he observed that his condition in hearing voices still persists or continues at the time of writing the report.
   
10. The elements of unpredictability and uncertainty remain a concern to me in his case; there is no real assurance or guarantee there will be no repetition of violence if released into the community after serving a determinate period of incarceration.
    
11. On the other hand if there is a possibility of being assisted in his condition then genuine efforts should be made to assist him and any others who might fall into this category. Locking them away in prison for life may be an easy way out but is not necessarily for their best interest if there is opportunity for rehabilitation and re-integration back into the community. Having said that, it is also my considered view that while in prison his prescribed treatment should continue, in addition that he be provided counselling services from the church that he belongs to, if there is none then any church organisation that can assist should be allowed to provide such assistance and that this should continue right through the period of incarceration.
    
12. It is my considered view accordingly that a sentence can be crafted which takes into account the prospects of rehabilitation and re-integration into account and therefore a determinate sentence should be imposed which hopefully will allow for this flexibility to be moulded in. The sentence in my view should reflect the element of punishment for the crime that has been committed but also catering for the establishment of any treatment regime so that he becomes used to them and will continue with them when he leaves, more importantly for him to realise that these are for his good. On his release, he should be referred to Kilu'ufi Hospital to the Psychiatric Unit there for ongoing supervision, monitoring and treatment.
    
13. I give credit for a guilty plea and that he is a first offender. I impose a sentence of 15 years, the period spent in custody to be taken into account.
    
14. He has a right of appeal if aggrieved with this sentence.
    

Orders of the Court:

1. Convict the defendant of the charge of manslaughter contrary to section 199(1) of the Penal Code and impose sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
   
2. The period spent in custody is to be taken into account.
   

The Court.