R v Monene [2019] SBHC 101; HCSI-CRC 321 of 2016 (27 September 2019)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Monene
Citation:
Date of decision:	27 September 2019
Parties:	Regina v Henry Monene
Date of hearing:	26 September 2019
Court file number(s):	321 of 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Palmer
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Convict him of the offence of manslaughter. 2. Impose a sentence of imprisonment of 15 years. 3. The period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence. 4. On his release he is to be referred to the Psychiatric Unit in Gizo for ongoing supervision, monitoring and treatment.
Representation:	Ms. O Ratu for the Crown Mr. H Lawry for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:	R v Chamber [1983] 5 Cr. App. R. (s) 1990

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 321 of 2016

REGINA

V

HENRY MONENE
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 26 September 2019
Date of Sentence: 27 September 2019

Ms. O. Ratu for the Crown
Mr. H. Lawry for the Defendant

SENTENCE

Palmer CJ.

1. You have been convicted of the offence of manslaughter after pleading guilty yesterday, 26 September 2019. This was after the original charge of murder was reduced to one of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The offence of manslaughter is one of the more serious offences under our criminal law in this country. Its’ seriousness is 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.
2. There are of-course varying degrees of seriousness depending on the circumstances of each case, the offence, the offender and the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors. Each case is to be considered on its own merits to arrive at an appropriate sentence.
3. The facts of this case were that you were angry with some boys, one of whom was Ruben Gredley (“the Deceased”). They were sitting under your house at that time, waiting for Lawrence Nathan (“Nathan”) who was having his bath at a nearby stand pipe. You came down from your house, told them to go away and chased them. You were holding a bush knife at that time. The Deceased and others ran to the standby pipe where Nathan was. The Deceased did not run away from there and so Nathan went over to him and told him to run away.
4. You threw the knife at their direction and walked over to pick it up. After picking up your knife, you attacked the Deceased, you cut his left wrist and stabbed him on the left side of the chest. The Deceased died shortly from excessive loss of blood.
5. I note that you suffer from a medical condition described as “paranoid schizophrenia”; you had been suffering from this condition prior to the events of 20 January 2016. The medical report produced by the Psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Orotaloa stated that you had no recollection of what caused the death of the Deceased. His report confirmed that this is consistent with the diagnosis of this type of medical condition and it is a blocking mechanism of the mind to protect from an unpleasant event.
6. In spite of this, you had decided to enter a guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter for which I give due credit. This obviously has saved court time and resources and saved witnesses from having to relive the horrors of the events that took place that day. It also shows that you acknowledge to some extent your culpability in this tragic case, the killing of a boy. Whether you accept it or not, you are responsible for the death of this young boy, Ruben Gredley. The consequences of your action mean a young life has been cut short and a future taken away.
7. The Prosecution have raised a number of aggravating features for the Court to take cognisance of. These included the following:
   1. The use of a weapon, you used a bush knife to attack the Deceased with;
   2. That the Deceased was unarmed and was a child, he was only 11 years old at that time;
   3. That as a result of the attack you caused grievous bodily harm on the child from which he died; and
   4. That the attack was unprovoked, the children had run away, for one reason or another he was slow in running away and you attacked him.
8. On the other hand I note the following mitigating factors raised on your behalf by your lawyer:
   1. Your guilty plea at an early opportunity; and
   2. The protracted period spent in pre-trial custody since January 2016.
9. The primary issue before me is to determine your level of culpability as a result of your mental condition and the appropriate sentence to impose. As stated by Leonard J. in the case of R. v. Chambers^[1]:
   • “In diminished responsibility cases there are various courses open to a judge. His choice of the right course will depend on the state of the evidence and the material before him. If the psychiatric reports recommend and justify it, and there are no contrary indications, he will make a hospital order. Where a hospital order is not recommended, or is not appropriate, and the defendant constitutes a danger to the public for an unpredictable period of time, the right sentence will, in all probability, be one of life imprisonment.
   • In cases where the evidence indicates that the accused’s responsibility for his acts were so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them was minimal, then a lenient course will be open to the judge. Provided there is no danger of repetition of violence, it will usually be possible to make such an order and will give the accused his freedom possibly with some supervision.
   • There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order; but in which the accused’s degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the Judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused’s responsibility and his view as to the period of time, if any, for which the accused will continue to be a danger to the public.”
10. There are three courses of action open to a judge to consider. First is the case where the report recommends that a hospital or committal order is recommended by the psychiatric report. In such instances an order or recommendation can be made to that effect by the Court.
11. The second scenario is where the accused’s responsibility for his acts are so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them is minimal, in such instance, a lenient course will be open to the judge.
12. The third scenario is where the accused’s degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the Judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused’s responsibility and his view as to the period of time, if any, for which the accused will continue to be a danger to the public.
13. I am satisfied the third scenario applies to this case. The circumstances of offending showed an element of responsibility for your actions, after telling the children to go away, chasing them, throwing a knife at them, collecting it and then attacking the child and killing him.
14. On the question of whether he will continue to be a danger to the public, I note since incarcerated in remand he has continued to take medication for his condition, which should stabilize his condition while on treatment. I also bear in mind the diagnosis of the Psychiatrist that this is a lifelong condition, which means he should continue with treatment after he leaves prison.
15. The seriousness of the crime and the consequences however should not be ignored, a life of a young child has been taken away by his actions. Taking into account the range of sentences imposed in other cases, which have been referred to by Counsels, I am satisfied a sentence of 15 years also should be imposed in this case. The period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence. On his release he should be referred to the Psychiatric Unit at Gizo (if any) for ongoing supervision, monitoring and treatment. He has a right of appeal if aggrieved by the sentence.

Orders of the Court:

1. Convict him of the offence of manslaughter.
2. Impose a sentence of imprisonment of 15 years.
3. The period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence.
4. On his release he is to be referred to the Psychiatric Unit in Gizo for ongoing supervision, monitoring and treatment.

The Court.

---

^[1] [1983]5 Cr. App. R. (S.) 190 (comprising Lord Lane C.J., McCullough and Leonard JJ)