R v Kopeta [2020] SBHC 107; HCSI-CRC 159 of 2019 (15 December 2020)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Kopeta
Citation:
Date of decision:	15 December 2020
Parties:	Regina v Christopher Lalo Kopeta
Date of hearing:	10 December 2020
Court file number(s):	159 of 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	In any case, for the offence of murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code (cap 26), I hereby sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.
Representation:	Ms. Emma Rizu appearing for Mr. Andrew Kelesi, Miss Geitaba Wale and Miss Francisca Luza for the Crown Mr. Daniel Kwalai for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code S.200 [cap 26]
Cases cited:	Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 159 of 2019

REGINA

V

CHRISTOPHER LALO KOPETA

Date of Hearing: 10 December 2020
Date of Decision: 15 December 2020

Ms. Emma Rizu appearing for Mr. Andrew Kelesi, Miss Geitaba Wale and Miss Francisca Luza for the Crown
Mr. Daniel Kwalai for the Defendant

RULING ON MINIMUM SENTENCE

Bird PJ:

1. On the 8^th December 2020, I found the defendant guilty of the offence of murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code (cap 26). After having convicted the defendant for murder, I am asked by Mr. Kwalai of counsel for the defendant to rule on a minimum sentence for the defendant. Submission on the issue of minimum sentence was adjourned to the 10^th December 2020.
2. On the 10^th December 2020, Mr. Kwalai of counsel for the defendant had informed the court that he was unable to file written submissions because of other commitments. I directed Mr. Kwalai to make oral submissions instead and to have his written submission filed on or before 10.00 am on the 14^th December 2020. The written submissions were not filed until about 10.15 am.
3. I am grateful for the written submission and case authorities referred to me by the prosecution team and the defence. They proved to be of great assistance to the court in the making of this ruling.
4. Both Mr. Kwalai and Ms. Rizu appearing for the crown have referred to the Court of Appeal case of Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23- SICOA- CRC 37 of 2016. The Court of Appeal had made it absolutely clear that when sentencing an offender to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, it is incumbent on the sentencing judge to fix a minimum term of imprisonment which the offender must serve prior to his or her release on license or parole. It is based upon that principle that I am now tasked to determine a minimum term of imprisonment that the defendant must serve before he can be released on license or parole.
5. In the Ludawane case, the Court of Appeal had provided guidance and had highlighted three categories of sentencing regime. The first category is the normal starting point of 12 years. The second is the higher starting point of 15/16 years and the third category is the very serious cases. Whichever category is selected would depend on the aggravating and mitigating factors of each case.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that one notable aggravating factor in this case is the nature of the injuries suffered by the victim. A rope was tied around her neck. The foot and flesh of her right leg was sliced off. Only the bone was attached to the victim’s body when it was found. A sharp instrument was pushed into her private part and the intestine was protruding out from that wound. In effect, the killing of the victim was a gruesome act. It is also obvious from the album of photographs, that the victim had suffered sexual maltreatment, humiliation and degradation before she died.
7. Secondly is the fact that the victim was a child of 17 years old. The victim was an innocent child returning home from school when she was violently attached by the defendant. The defendant is an adult and he waited for a perfect opportunity to execute his plan on an innocent child.
8. It is obvious that the defendant had used a weapon to aid him in the commission of the offence. A knife was used in the attack. It is also obvious that a rope was also used by the defendant in the attack. Doctor Philip Komasi had stated in his report of the 17^th November 2017 that the cause of death was suffocation from strangulation and loss of blood from the various wounds inflicted.
9. I have had the opportunity to hear oral submissions from the defence and I have also read the written submissions filed after 10.00 am on the 14^th December 2020. In the Ludawane case, the Court of Appeal had stated that mitigating factors relating to the offence will include an intention to cause grievous harm, rather than to kill and spontaneous and lack of pre-meditation. Mitigating factors relating to the offender may include his age, clear evidence of remorse or contrition and a timely guilty plea.
10. In relation to the mitigation in relation to the offence, it was submitted by Mr. Kwalai that the defendant was provoked into the commission of the offence when the perpetrators in the sexual assault case involving his 13 year old daughter neglected to pay compensation demanded by him. I have already ruled that it was about a month after his daughter was sexually assaulted that he had committed the offence in this case. Under that particular circumstance, the defendant is not entitled to use provocation as a matter of law. In effect, the defendant had never raised the defence of provocation in his murder trial.
11. In his lawyer’s written submission, the defendant’s age is not even mentioned. I have had the opportunity to read exhibit ‘K1’ and found out that the defendant was 40 years old in 2017. That would make him 43 years old this year. He is married with six children.
12. Taking into account all of the circumstances discussed above, I am of the view that the starting point in this case would be in the second category and that is a period from 15/16 years. In view of the aggravating features discussed above and the absence of any strong mitigating factors, I recommend that a minimum term of imprisonment as part of the life sentence is one of eighteen years.
13. In any case, for the offence of murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code (cap 26), I hereby sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.

Orders of the court

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge