R v Kapini [2018] SBHC 118; HCSI-CRC 334 of 2017 (4 May 2018)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Kapini
Citation:
Date of decision:	4 May 2018
Parties:	Regina v Paul Kapini
Date of hearing:	4 May 2018
Court file number(s):	334 of 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Palmer CJ
On appeal from:
Order:	Convict the defendant of the offence of manslaughter. Impose sentence of 3 years Direct that the period spent in remand in custody to be deducted from the total sentence
Representation:	Ms. M Suifa’asi for the Crown Mr. g Gray for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 334 of 2017

REGINA

V

PAUL KAPINI
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 4 May 2018
Date of Sentence: 4 May 2018

Ms. M Suifa’asi for the Crown
Mr. G Gray for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.

1. The defendant was initially charged with the offence of murder but then had been reduced to manslaughter at trial, to which you had entered a guilty plea.
2. The seriousness of the offence of manslaughter is reflected in the maximum sentence of life imprisonment, which the court can impose in extreme cases of seriousness, depending on the circumstances of each case and the presence of aggravating and mitigating features.
3. I give credit for an early guilty plea given at the earliest opportunity, when the original charge of murder was withdrawn at the commencement of trial and substituted with a lesser offence, manslaughter, saving court time and expense from having to convene trial and saving prosecution witnesses from having to attend and recount tragic events in court of what happened that day. I am satisfied the early guilty plea is also consistent with remorse and being sorry for your actions.
4. The Court also bears in mind circumstances of offending, which gave rise to the offence in which a life has been tragically lost. I note your counsel has submitted on your behalf that you were not the aggressor, had been attacked at least three times by the deceased with a bush knife, the first one landing on your right cheek, the second on your left forehead and third one on your left ear. Your counsel has also submitted a rock was thrown at you by the deceased, which hit you on your left shoulder; I note prosecution however, takes issue with this wanted time to speak to its witnesses further about that rock throwing. I am satisfied in any event, the facts showed you were not the aggressor in the circumstances of the confrontation. The fatal wounds were only inflicted after you were attacked and when you retaliated to defend yourself. I also bear in mind what your lawyer has indicated that you opted to plead guilty to the lesser charge rather than raising the defence of self-defence.
5. I note you have no previous convictions, a first offender and that this is your first time to appear in court.
6. I note reconciliation had been facilitated with the deceased’s family by your father and relatives; a substantial payment of compensation in custom made, 3 cows and 10 strings of custom shell money (known locally as “Baniau”). I note this paves the way for reintegration, acceptance, settlement and restoration back into your community on your release from prison.
7. I note the circumstances of offending, it occurred out of an unfortunate confrontation with the deceased at his home; you were blamed it appears, of being responsible for the loss of some chicken that belonged to the deceased. That confrontation tragically escalated into a fight, which resulted in the death of the deceased. There was no pre-planning on your part to attack the deceased.
8. I note, while there was a bush knife (which can be regarded as a dangerous weapon) in your possession, it has to be kept in perspective that you only resorted to it to defend yourself when attacked. I find nothing unusual about being in possession of a bush knife in this instance and accept submissions by your counsel that carrying a bush knife around is regarded as normal in rural village life. If any issue is to be raised about the inappropriateness of being in possession of a weapon at any particular time, these must be supported with relevant facts.
9. I note your family has suffered additional losses, two dwelling houses and a canteen house were burnt and destroyed in retaliation for the killing.
10. I accept submissions from your lawyer that you cooperated with police since being remanded in custody in prison, and that you have spent a long time in remand since 30 November 2015, a period of two years as at 30 November 2017.
11. I note your age, that you are young, prospects of rehabilitation being good, there is nothing to suggest otherwise than that it is an asset and should give you opportunity to reform and change and be able to re-settle peacefully back into your community. I accept submissions from your lawyer that your time in remand in custody for two years has also given you time to reflect and consider the seriousness of your actions and effects and that you have learned hard lessons from this.
12. I thank Counsels for assisting me with a summary of similar case authorities and sentences imposed for manslaughter, which have helped me to consider an appropriate sentence to be imposed in the circumstances of this case. Balancing all mitigating factors and aggravating features, I am satisfied a sentence of 3 years is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
13. I am also satisfied that the period spent in 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 3 years.
3. Direct that the period spent in remand in custody to be deducted from the total sentence.

The Court.