R v Mewa [2019] SBHC 33; HCSI-CRC 591 of 2017 (19 March 2019)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Case name:	R v Mewa

Citation:

Date of decision:	19 March 2019

Parties:	Regina v Branson Mewa

Date of hearing:	8 February 2019

Court file number(s):	CRC 591 of 2017

Jurisdiction:	Criminal

Place of delivery:

Judge(s):	Maina; PJ

On appeal from:

Order:	Ct 1- Four (4) years imprisonment Ct 2- Four (4) years imprisonment Sentence to be served consecutively The period spent in custody to be deducted from the sentences

Representation:	Ms. O Ratu for the Prosecution Mr. R. D Pulekera for the Defence

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:	Penal Code, s 142 (1), Juvenile Offenders Act (cap 14)

Cases cited:	Mulele v Director of Public Prosecution , Poini v Director of Public Prosecution [1986] SBCA 6, Regina v Bosamete [2013] SBHC 37, Regina v Bonuga [2013] SBCA 22,

The accused Branson Mewa pleaded guilty and convicted on two counts of defilement contrary to section 142 (1) of the Penal Code.

The incidents happened to two different victims and occurred at Matu village, Santa Cruz, Temotu Province. The first count relate to an incident happened on 12^th May 2009 to a victim girl (first victim) who was 7 years old. And the second count relate to another incident occurred on 2^nd June 2014 to a victim girl (second victim) who was also 7 years old.

The offence of defilement under section 142 (1) of the Penal Code is felony, and shall be liable or to life imprisonment. And for sentence the court is to decide the appropriate sentence for convicted persons. The cases Mulele v Director of Public Prosecution; Poini v Director of Public Prosecution^[1] set out a policy guidelines in the sentencing for the defilement offences with aggravating features.

With the starting point for sentencing of an adult person for defilement, the case Regina v Bosamete^[2] state that it should be 8 years and emphasized by the Court of Appeal in the case Regina v Bonuga^[3] that the 8 years as the starting point for those with duty of responsibility. These cases and others with similar charges provide the guideline or tariff for sentencing for defilement of a girl under 13 years and that should be in the vicinities or ranges of 5 years to 11 years.

The victims were very young with ages of 7 years and at the first incident, accused was 14 years old and second incident, he was already 19 years old. With that or at the time of first offending, accused was a young person or juvenile under the Juvenile Offenders Act (Cap 14).

For the two charges against the accused, the aggravating factor is the disparity of ages.

I give credit and take into account the plea of guilty by the accused on the two charges and no previous conviction.

There is an unexplained situation with delay in the prosecution of the accused on the first offence even the second offence. Such raises a serious concern on part of the prosecution.

The first incident occurred on 12^th May 2009 and accused was just arrested by the Police for that offence on 2^nd July 2014 but granted on bail on the same day. Later on 12^th September 2015 he was arrested for the second offences and there he has been remanded in custody until to date.

The record disclose the committal of the accused for trial in the High Court was on 30^th October 2015 while he was in custody. He continued to remand in custody from the date of committal until the Director of Public Prosecution filed the two Information or charges on 5^th December 2017. Later or more than a year on 7^th February 2019, an agreed summary fact was filed in the court and a day later, accused was arraigned and he pleaded guilty on all charges against him.

The Prosecution submitted there is no undue delay as the matter was held up in the process of the justice system. I cannot understand what they meant with that as the above or tip of their part was a committal in the High Court on 30^th October 2015, the two information filed on 5^th December 2017 and agreed summary filed on 7^th February 2019. These show undue delay on their part. This accused has been in custody from 30^th October 2015 to this date to about 4 years or more.

Upon taking into account the plea of guilty on the two counts at the first instance or arraignments, young person, aggravating factors, delay or all the matters in this case, the accused Branson Mewa deserves a bit of leniency or mercy and therefore he is sentenced as follows:

High Court of Solomon Islands

R v Mewa [2019] SBHC 33; HCSI-CRC 591 of 2017 (19 March 2019)