R v Sangolafa [2018] SBHC 116; HCSI-CRC 646 of 2015 (13 June 2018)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Sangolafa
Citation:
Date of decision:	13 June 2018
Parties:	Regina v John Sangolafa
Date of hearing:	4, 7 June 2018
Court file number(s):	646 of 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Palmer CJ
On appeal from:
Order:	Convict the defendant of the offence of manslaughter Impose sentence of six (6) years Direct that the period spent in remand in custody to be deducted from the total sentence
Representation:	Mr. Ronald B Talasasa (Jnr) and Mrs. S Ramosaea for the Crown Mr. g Grey and S. Manebosa for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 646 of 2015

REGINA

V

JOHN SANGOLAFA
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 4, 7 June 2018
Date of Sentence: 13 June 2018

Mr. Ronald B. Talasasa and Mrs. S Ramosaea for the Crown
Mr. G Grey and S Manebosa for the Defendant

SENTENCE

Palmer CJ.

1. You were initially charged with the offence of murder to which you had entered a not guilty plea and a trial scheduled for Monday 4^th June 2018. At commencement of trial however, following negotiations between the learned Director of Public Prosecutions (“the Director”) and your counsel, a nolle prosequi was filed to the charge of murder and the lesser charge of manslaughter was substituted.
2. You were re-arraigned on the lesser charge and you entered a guilty plea. I give credit for the guilty plea given at the earliest opportunity, for saving court time, expense and prosecution witnesses from having to attend and re-live the trauma of what occurred that night.
3. I am satisfied the early guilty plea is also consistent with remorse and being sorry for your actions.
4. I note your personal circumstances, family background, and school background, and in particular at the time of the commission of the offence you were studying at the Solomon Islands National University (“SINU”), undergoing second year in Certificate Electrical Programme.
5. I also note in your mitigation that during the period of remand you had kept yourself busy and occupied in undergoing theological studies with SWIM^[1] Solomon Islands, a Christian based organisation under the auspices of the Christian Reformed Churches of Australia providing Bible based teaching and support to inmates and those in need. As well you had undergone training with Cross Road Bible Institute to help in reformulating your views and perceptions in life and attitude with the view to reforming your life and preparing yourself when you will re-enter public life and the community on your release.
6. I accept submissions from your Counsel that you have good prospects of rehabilitation on release from prison. I note you have no previous convictions and that this is your first time to appear in court.
7. I also note that following the death of the deceased, your family experienced a lot of trauma and fear from threats of violence and intimidation from the deceased’s family members and relatives and physical loss to property and possessions when your family home was burnt down. The loss included money and custom shell money collected towards compensation. In spite of this loss, your family struggled with the help of family members and friends to collect sufficient cash and shell money to make payment for compensation and enabling reconciliation to take place between the two parties. I note a lot of innocent family members as well have been victimised as a consequence of your actions.
8. I take note of the circumstances surrounding the offence, that it arose from a fight that had occurred between your group and the deceased and another friend. The summary of agreed facts gave two different versions as to the cause of the fight, seeking to put blame on the other side. If Crown’s version of events is to be accepted it would put blame on you and your group as the aggressor, for Crown’s version is that the friend of the deceased used the four letter word when he tripped as they were walking along and denied it was directed at any one in particular. If your account is to be believed, blame would placed on the other side for you heard them swearing at you and your tribe from which the fight broke out between you.
9. In deciding which version is to be accepted and believed from the summary of facts alone, I am more inclined to accept your account for you were not drunk that night whereas the deceased and his friend had been drinking kwaso for most part of that night when you met. Your account in my view would be more readily believable than that of the deceased and his friend.
10. In the fight, the deceased was stabbed at the back of his thigh, severing the muscles and the femoral vein and artery. No doubt the use of the knife is an aggravating feature, unwarranted in the circumstances, and in particular when you were not under immediate danger, threat or attack, until confronted afterwards by a relative of the deceased wielding an iron rod. The attack was needless, for the deceased had his back to you and you could have escaped then, although, I do bear in mind the context of the events that night when making assessment of what had transpired.
11. I note the force used was excessive and unlawful and so your guilty plea is a recognition and acceptance for your wrong doing, that you are sorry and remorseful for what had happened.
12. A number of case authorities had been referred to for my consideration; I thank counsels for providing me with these to assist me in reaching an appropriate sentence. As has been said on many occasions, the criminality of the offence and seriousness lies in the loss of life. To reflect that seriousness of the consequence of the offence, a maximum penalty of life imprisonment has been provided for in our law. Of-course each case has to be considered on its merits and the maximum penalty reserved for the worst cases. The case authorities that have been cited reflect the numerous variations in sentences that courts have imposed in respect of manslaughter offences, dependent on the circumstances of each case and the presence of mitigating and aggravating features. It is this variation in the circumstances of each case and the varying degrees of offending in manslaughter cases that determine where the starting point will be.
13. One common feature which stands out in these of cases is the part alcohol plays and more often than not the use of a weapon, a knife. In Solomon Islands society, carrying a knife around is not uncommon for in many instances it is a tool that is used in almost daily life and activity of Solomon Islanders. It is the use that it is put to in this instance that is wrong, but it is not wrong and unusual to find a knife in the possession of a person. The facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of an offence will often determine if it was acquired or taken for the purpose of the commission of an offence or not. In this instance, the deceased and his friend were drunk while you had a knife in your possession which you used during the fight. The circumstances in which the knife was used clearly amounted to an aggravating feature in this case.
14. I am satisfied an immediate custodial sentence should be imposed to reflect the seriousness of offending and the loss of life that ensued. In the light of the circumstances of offending in this case, the fight, where a knife was used and the resultant loss of life, I am satisfied the starting point should be between seven to eight years. In other instances it may be less.
15. While the aggravating features will naturally raise the period of custodial sentence imposed, the strong mitigating factors in your favour cannot be ignored, your early guilty plea, your youth, that you have no previous convictions and have good prospects of rehabilitation, that compensation has been paid in custom paving way for reintegration back in the community, and noting the long period in custody of almost 3 years having to wait for your trial, I am satisfied a sentence of six (6) years appropriate to reflect the principles of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. As well that period spent in pre-trial custody is to be deducted from the total sentence imposed.

Orders of the Court:

1. Convict the defendant of the offence of manslaughter.
2. Impose sentence of six (6) years.
3. Direct that the period spent in remand in custody to be deducted from the total sentence.

The Court.

---

^[1] SWIM – Short Workshops In Mission.