R v Ahoka [2020] SBHC 85; HCSI-CRC 268 of 2020 (15 August 2020)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Ahoka
Citation:
Date of decision:	15 August 2020
Parties:	Regina v Chris Ahoka
Date of hearing:	13 August 2020
Court file number(s):	268 of 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Palmer; CJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Convict the defendant of the charge of manslaughter contrary to section 199(1) of the Penal Code and impose sentence of 15 years imprisonment. 2. The period spent in custody is to be taken into account
Representation:	Mr. A. E Kelesi and Mr. J. W Zoze assisting for the Crown Mr. B. Ifuto’o for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code, S.199 (1)
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 268 of 2020

REGINA

V

CHRIS AHOKA

HEARING: 13 August 2020
Sentence: 15 August 2020

Mr. A.E Kelesi and J.W Zoze assisting for the Crown
Mr. B. Ifuto’o for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.

1. The defendant has entered a guilty plea to a charge of manslaughter contrary to section 199(1) of the Penal Code on the grounds of diminished responsibility. This lesser charge and plea has been accepted as the more appropriate charge by both prosecution and the defence. I am satisfied the course of action taken is appropriate in the circumstances based on the psychiatric report provided by the Psychiatrist^[1] on the defendant dated 10 March 2020.
2. The offence of manslaughter however remains as one of the more serious offences under our criminal law in this country, its gravity 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.
3. There are of-course varying degrees of seriousness depending on the circumstances of each case, the offence, offender and the presence of aggravating and or mitigating factors. Each case is to be considered on its own merits to arrive at an appropriate sentence.
4. In this case, the facts of the offending revealed that the defendant attacked the deceased suddenly and unexpectedly with an iron bar to the neck area and jaw, fatally injuring him and causing his death thereafter.
5. The post-mortem report by the Doctor^[2] dated 13 November 2019 identified the neck wound as the most serious which severed the blood vessel of the neck and which would have led to the death of the deceased immediately after at the scene.
6. There are no eye witnesses to the crime but the surrounding circumstances established that there could not have been anyone else responsible other than the defendant who was with the deceased at that particular time at night (around 11:00 pm). This was evident from his background of mental disturbance. He also admitted this to the police in his record of interview.
7. By the time the killing was discovered the deceased had already died.
8. I have been referred to the report prepared by the Psychiatrist, Dr. Rex Maukera on the defendant dated, 10^th March 2020, and taken some five months after the incident.
9. The defendant has a history of mental illness dating back to 2017. He was first admitted to the National Psychiatric Unit on the 2^nd June 2017, when he was only 18 years old for substance induced psychosis. He had other admissions on 6 February 2018 and 21^st April 2018. He had been put on some treatment to address his substance abuse but he had not adhered and to the treatment and continued to abuse marijuana.
10. He was seen by the Doctor after the killing on 19 November 2019, about a month after, at the Correctional Centre at Auki. The Doctor noted that he had abnormal perceptions and inappropriate beliefs and showed no remorse over the killing of the deceased. The Doctor observed that he showed signs of psychosis and so was commenced on antipsychotic treatment.
11. In his interview with the defendant, he told the Doctor that a man had told him to kill the deceased. He also claimed that he had killed the deceased because he had sex with his sister.
12. Since the commencement of his treatment, the Doctor observed that he had improved, the non-existent voice he had been hearing had subsided and his abnormal belief had also subsided. While he still had some abnormal perceptions and thought, it had improved and was more controlled with treatment.
13. I note that since his incarceration in prison, he has been given regular treatment for his condition.
14. In determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed, the risk of harm remains if released and he refuses or fails to continue with his medication. No one can predict the risk that the public or community will be exposed to in the event that he hears voices again telling him to kill or if he does feel compelled to kill again.
15. According to the report of the Doctor, the potential of risk and harm to the public will be controlled if he continues to adhere to his treatment regime.
16. The elements of unpredictability and uncertainty remain a concern to me in his case; there is no real assurance or guarantee there will be no repetition of violence if released into the community after serving a determinate period of incarceration.
17. I give credit for a guilty plea, that his prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration back into his community as a young person are dependent on ongoing treatment. He is now 21 years old.
18. On the other hand, I note the aggravating features in the case, that a life has been taken away and that it was his own grandfather that was killed. Secondly, I note his grandfather was fairly old at about 94 years old, defenceless and vulnerable. Thirdly, that the injuries sustained were horrific and particularly violent; and that a weapon (an iron bar) was used in the killing.
19. I am satisfied in the circumstances that a determinate sentence can be considered, which takes into account the prospects of rehabilitation and re-integration into account. The sentence however should also reflect the element of punishment for the crime that has been committed and catering for the establishment of a treatment regime so that he becomes used to them and will continue with them when he leaves. On his release, he should be referred to Kilu’ufi Hospital to the Psychiatric Unit there for ongoing supervision, monitoring and treatment.
20. I impose a sentence of 15 years, the period spent in custody to be taken into account.
21. He has a right of appeal if aggrieved with this sentence.

Orders of the Court:

1. Convict the defendant of the charge of manslaughter contrary to section 199(1) of the Penal Code and impose sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
2. The period spent in custody is to be taken into account.

The Court.

---

^[1] Report of Dr. Maukera (Consultant Psychiatrist) dated 10 March 2020
^[2] Dr. Roy Maraka