R v Wanefiolo [2020] SBHC 16; HCSI-CRC 163 of 2019 (24 January 2020)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Wanefiolo
Citation:
Date of decision:	24 January 2020
Parties:	R v Jonathan Wanefiolo and Stanley Waneakwasia
Date of hearing:
Court file number(s):	163 of 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Maina PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	Jonathan Wanefiolo sentence to 11 years imprisonment Stanley Waneakwasia sentence to 11 years imprisonment The sentences for each of them to commence on the date he was held or put into custody
Representation:	Mr. Kelesi for Prosecution Mr B Alasia for Wanefiolo Mr. L Hite for Waneakwasia
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code, s 293 (1) (a)
Cases cited:	Selo v Regina [2017] SBCA 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 163 of 2020

REGINA

V

JONATHAN WANEFIOLO AND STANLEY WANEAKWASIA

Date of Sentence:24 January 2020

Mr. Kelesi for Prosecution
Mr B Alasia for Wanefiolo
Mr. L Hite for Waneakwasia

SENTENCE

Maina PJ:

The accused Jonathan Wanefiolo and Stanley Waneakwasia both pleaded guilty and convicted on the charges of armed robbery contrary to 293 (1) (a) of the Penal Code.

Brief Background

The alleged robbery was done on a commercial bank namely Westpac Bank (now BSP) on the early morning of 26^th January 2015.

Jonathan Wanefiolo and Stanley Waneakwasia co-accused Gebi Selo had pleaded guilty and his matter was finalized by the Court of Appeal^[1]. On his plea of guilty, he was sentenced by the High Court to 8 years imprisonment for armed robbery and 5 years imprisonment for grievous harm. His matter was further appealed and the Court of Appeal increased his sentence 14 years imprisonment for armed robbery and 10 years imprisonment for grievous harm.

Facts

The crown and defences agreed to these facts (the same facts used for Gebi Selo’s Case) as follows:

On 25 January 2015, the appellants met with others and discussed and agreed a plan to rob Westpac Bank (now BSP). They were aware that bank officers would bring money out of the bank at certain times to be transported to the Central Bank.

The next day, the group reassembled around 8 a.m., drank some beers and then drove to town in a car with tinted glass. The car was parked at the Western Bay Casino bus stop, outside the Westpac Bank. This is the Point Cruz branch of the bank, which is in Mendana Avenue in the centre of Honiara, a busy commercial area where many people can be expected to be going about their lawful business.

Shortly after the arrival of the gang’s car, the Westpac escort vehicle arrived and parked some metres in front of the car. Both cars were facing west. The appellant was armed with a bush knife, and it was conceded by his counsel that others were also armed with bush knives.

After a few minutes, the security guards brought the waiting boxes of money, totaling $4 million in two separate black suitcases, to the vehicle. They were accompanied by two bank officers.

As soon as the two security officers came from the bank, Selo ran up to them and pretended to cut the first security officer, who threw down his box and ran away. That box was dragged into the car.

The second security officer was an unfortunate and courageous man named Michael Malea. After Mr Malea put the box he was holding on the ground he ran towards Selo, trying to grab him. Selo attacked him viciously with the knife. The attack was so vicious, it completely amputated Mr Malea’s left hand, leaving only the thumb. His left elbow was also seriously injured.

The group took off in the vehicle at high speed with the boxes of money, but were spotted by a police vehicle at the Town Ground roundabout when they nearly collided with a passing vehicle. The police vehicle commenced a chase and finally caught up with the vehicle when it wheeled off the road, crashed, and overturned near a private home at Kakabona. The residents of Kakabona helped the police chase and capture some of the robbers. Others got away.

Police later retrieved the two stolen boxes, and of the $4 million, $295,000 was missing.

The Law

The robbery offence is provided in section 293 of the Penal Code and (1) (a) state:

“293.- (1) Any person who -
(a) being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, or being together with one other person or more, robs, or assaults with intent to rob, any person; or
(b ..............................
is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to imprisonment for life”

Starting Point

The term “shall be liable” for length of imprisonment, in fact impose to the courts sentencing discretion in considering an appropriate sentence. And the question is where does the court start or what is the proper and starting point?

The responsibility for determining the appropriate sentence on a charge in a case remains a discretion of the court. It is always a big task for the courts as there is no mathematical or scientific formula use by the courts in arriving at a particular sentence. And it is always the considering the appropriate sentence when the court will be assisted by the case precedents and in this case the court has been ably assisted.

The co-accused in this case or incident had been dealt on appeal by the highest court of the land (Court of Appeal) and now the two accuses are before me with charge of robbery with the same facts of the incident. The co-accused’s sentence ultimately and with the bank robbery, a precedent in the sentencing and or applies to the two accused as in co-accused Gebi Selo case^[2]. In that case the Court of Appeal stated:

“42. We are quite satisfied that the appropriate starting point for the bank robbery on its own would be 15 years. For the grievous bodily harm, noting the viciousness of the attack, 10 years, giving an overall starting point of 25 years. In reaching that starting point, for the bank robbery we would have started at 10 years and increased it by five years to take into account the aggravating features set out above. For the grievous bodily harm, we would start at eight years, and increase it to 10 years because of the aggravating features of that particular offence, including the injuries to the victim”.

This case also stated the seriousness of the case when it stated at paragraph 37:

“This is a most serious case of armed robbery of a commercial bank during normal business hours. It was premeditated and involved weapons which, it is clear, this gang were prepared to use. The appellant and his companion consciously planned a robbery in Mendana Avenue in the heart of the Honiara commercial district. They did so at a time when they must have been well aware a large number of innocent bystanders going about their lawful business would be present. They must have also been aware that their actions could prove dangerous to those bystanders. A very large sum of money was involved”.

And for the two accuses on their part or involvement in this bank robbery the starting point would be 10 years.

Submissions

Counsel Kelesi again stressed the seriousness of the offending, robbery was premeditated, gang attacked of five people, robbing a commercial bank, a large of money involved and robbery was done with violence. Counsel acknowledges both accuses enter the plea of guilty.

I take noted the accused Waneakwasia had indicated his guilty plea in 2018 and surrender to the Police. And Wanefiolo for his admission and cooperation with the Police.

Counsel Hite for accused Waneakwasia submitted that his client has plead guilty to the charge. He was not mastermind planner, actively involved, before and after the incident not armed with any weapon. With his MP A. Auga had paid and reconciled with injured security person. This accused has been in custody for this case for more than 3 years now.

Counsel Alasia for Wanefiolo submitted that his client had pleaded guilty to the charge, a first offender, cooperated with the Police, remorse, made reconciliation with the injured person and concern on the time spent in custody and that be taken into consideration in the sentence.

I noted the cases referred to by counsel Hite but as I have referred to earlier, where to start or starting point for sentence with bank robbery and for this case, is already set by the Court of Appeal in the accused’s co-accused’s case.

The Court

I give to both accuses credit for plea of guilty and being the first offenders and take into account these in this sentence.

The seriousness of this offending is as highlights in the facts. Both accuses involved in this crime of armed robbery with others as Gebi Selo who already been convicted and sentence by the court on his part. With the serious of the case, the two accuses part in the offending and on top of the starting point of 10 years, I will give each of them two years.

And taking into account the guilty plea from them it is my view that the appropriate sentence to be reduced by one year from the total of 12 years.

On the charge of armed robbery, the two offenders each is sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.

ORDERS

(a) Jonathan Wanefiolo sentence to 11 years imprisonment
(b) Stanley Waneakwasia sentence to 11 years imprisonment
(c) The sentences for each of them to commence on the date he was held or put into custody.

Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge

---

^[1] Selo v Regina [2017] SBCA 17; SICOA-CRAC 9003 of 2017 (13 October 2017)
^[2] ibid