R v Maedani [2021] SBHC 13; HCSI-CRC 552 of 2020 (22 April 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Maedani
Citation:
Date of decision:	22 April 2021
Parties:	Regina v Casper Maedani, Sara Mostyn, Ben Anisi
Date of hearing:	22 April 2021
Court file number(s):	552 of 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird J
On appeal from:
Order:	1 The defendants Casper Maedani, Ben Anisi and Mostyn Sara are convicted of one count of manslaughter contrary to section 199 as read with section 21 of the Penal Code (cap 26). 2 The defendant Casper Maedani is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment 3 The defendant Ben Anisi is hereby sentenced to 3 years imprisonment 4 The defendant Mostyn Sara is hereby sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. 5 Time spent in pre-trial custody to be deducted from total sentence. 6 Right of Appeal
Representation:	Mr. John Wesley Zoze for the Prosecution Mr. Oxley Limeniala for the Defendants
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code section [cap 26] section 199 and 21
Cases cited:	Popoe v Regina [2015] SBCA 20, R v Corisinto [2012] SBHC 136, R v Talu [2005] SBHC 123, R v Aitorea unreported Criminal case No 213 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 552 of 2020

REGINA

V

CASPER MAEDANI, MOSTYN SARA, BEN ANISI

Date of Hearing: 20 April 2021
Date of Decision: 22 April 2021

Mr. John Wesley Zoze for the Prosecution
Mr. Oxley Limeniala for the Defendants

SENTENCE

Bird PJ:

1. The defendants namely Casper Maedani, Ben Anisi and Mostyn Sara are charged with one count of manslaughter contrary to section 199 as read with section 21 of the Penal Code (cap 26). Upon being arraigned, they have respectively entered guilty pleas. They were respectively convicted as charged.
2. The offence of manslaughter is very serious and its seriousness is reflected in the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is however less serious than the charge of murder because of the absence of the intention to kill or to cause grievous harm.
3. The facts of your case are as follows

On the 9^th of June 2020, at around 11pm and 12 am, 18 years old deceased Kenneth Mania aka Kenneth Aufiu was found dead in the sea at Usu’usue, North East Malaita area by some fishermen who were out fishing during the night. He was picked up and identified by people and relatives of the deceased as Kenneth Mania. He was taken to Ata Clinic, Sulufou, Malaita Province for medical examination. They identified that the defendant had some injuries equivalent to knife injuries on both arms.
Before he was found dead, people in Ato village had seen the deceased on that day at Ato village. He was residing at Ato village for some time and he was returning to his village at around 7-9 pm that night.
At that time, the deceased had taken a fiber glass canoe belonging to the father of the defendant Casper Maedani without permission. Some boys from the village went after the deceased and took back the canoe.
Sometimes later, the defendants Ben Anisi, Casper Maedani and Mostyn Sara arrived at the seaside from the main village. The defendants Ben Anisi and Casper Maedani went after the deceased to check the canoe he used. They suspected that the canoe belongs to their uncle James. The defendant Mostyn Sara at that time was holding a knife and went after him. When they reached Mangonia point, they did not see the deceased but they saw what they believed to be the deceased’s canoe floating. There they identify the canoe belonging to their uncle James and took the fiberglass canoe and paddled it back to Ato village and hid the fiber glass canoe in the mangroves. The defendant Mostyn Sara was returning and torching along the sea when the deceased saw him. The deceased shouted and swore at the defendant Mostyn Sara, walking towards him.
Upon hearing the deceased, both the defendants Ben Anisi and Casper Maedani returned to the deceased and defendant Mostyn Sara. That area was Kikibele Point. When they reached him, the deceased attempted to shoot them with stones. The defendants then shouted at the deceased ‘’you kam umi go rest lo home and morning na you go back’’. The deceased approached them and he was holding stones and a scissors in his hand.
At that instant, the defendant Ben Anisi kicked the deceased and the deceased fell towards Casper Maedani. At that time the defendant Mostyn Sara was holding onto his torch and shone his torch at them.
The deceased then stabbed Casper Maedani’s left hand. Ben Anisi and Casper Maedani retaliated and swing the paddle at the deceased once and the paddle broke into half. Seeing that, the defendant Mostyn Sara ran to his canoe and took out a kitchen knife and cut the right arm of the deceased and again on his left arm. The cuts were very serious. The deceased then ran away.
The three defendants then returned to Ato village and there people in the village observed that they had serious injuries. They then admitted to the people that they had a fight with the deceased.
Around 10-11pm that night the deceased body was found floating in the sea by some of the fishermen who were diving fish at Manoaba. The body was taken to Sulifoala Clinic for examination. He was later identified as Kenneth Mania of Adaliua Village, Malaita Province.
Dr. Roy Maraka in his assessment of the deceased stated there were two slash wounds on the left arm of the deceased. One was deep and it cut the humerus (bone) but not through. There were also two slash wound on the right arm, exposing the muscles. There were no injuries on the head, neck, chest wall, abdomen and back.
On internal examination, there was no haemorrhages present in/the brain, in the pleural cavities, pericardial cavity. The neck spine, ribs and hyoid bone were not fractured. The brain and lungs were decomposed. The liver, spleen and intestine were not injured. The heart and coronary arteries were unremarkable.
It is his opinion that the deceased may probably die from drowning as a result of slash wounds on both of his arms. It is his opinion that he could not have died immediately from the slash wounds on both of his arms. The slash wounds were sustained at the lateral aspect of his arms. The major blood vessels that pass through the arms are present on the anterior / medial aspect of the arms. The lateral regions that the deeper slash wounds were located had fewer smaller vessels which were occupied mostly with muscles. Thus he could not have died immediately from the bleeding of the muscles. He may have attached at sea, and since he had wounds on his arms that severed his muscles he could not swim and therefore probably died of drowning. He was cut twice on the right arm and also twice on the left arm. It was also possible that one person cut the right arm another person cut the left arm. If only one person cut his arms, then it was more likely that person cut his hands from behind. It was also possible that he may be held and submerged after he was cut on his arms and then was drowned. The abrasion on the upper limbs, right fingers and lower limbs were also sustained at around the time of death. They were caused by blunt objects.
The three defendants were arrested and charged with the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 199 of the Penal Code.
The people of the deceased had demanded the people of the defendants to pay 50 × shell money and $50,000 as compensation for the life of the deceased.
The people of the defendants had paid 34 × shell money as part of the compensation. The outstanding to be paid is 16 × shell money and $50,000.

4. In sentencing you for the offence of manslaughter. I am assisted by the guidelines and principles used by the courts in like offences. In cases of manslaughter, the usual sentence that the court normally impose is one of incarceration. That sentence is inevitable because of the nature of the offending.

Comparative cases

5. In the respective submissions by the crown and the defence, I am being referred to, in the case of Popoe v Regina [2015] SBCA 20, SICOA- CRC 42 of 2014. The court of Appeal have put the starting point at 6 years in insistences where a weapon is used in the offending. The court of Appeal on appeal had reduced a 10 years imprisonment term to one of 7 years for manslaughter.
6. In the case of R v Corisinto [2012] SBHC 136, HCSI- CRC 144 of 2012, the deceased and the defendant were cousins. They were drinking together and had an argument. The deceased was armed with a knife. In the process of trying to disarm the deceased, the defendant hit him with an iron bar. The deceased died as a result. The defendant was sentence was to 4 years imprisonment for manslaughter.
7. In the case of R v Talu [2005] SBHC 123, HCSI – CRC 402 of 2004, the defendant was sentence to three years imprisonment.
8. In the case of R v Aitorea HCSI – Unreported, Criminal case No 213 of 2020, the defendant was sentence to 2 years imprisonment for manslaughter.

The case of Rongodala v Regina [2006] SBCA 2, SICCA – CRAC 008 of 2006 sets of a number of factors which should be taken into account to determine the level of sentences for manslaughter. Those factors included the age of the offenders, type of weapon used, persistence of the attack, vulnerability of the victim and relationship between the parties.

Aggravating factors

9. With the above guidelines cited in the above cases, I now turn to discuss the aggravating features in your case. I am told that you used weapons on the deceased. From the agreed facts, you used a paddle and a knife to attack the deceased. You have already out numbered the deceased but you have also used a paddle and a knife to assault him.
10. Also on the agreed facts, there was presence of persistent attack on the deceased. He was whipped with the paddle and he also was cut with the knife. The number of injuries sustained by the victim clearly indicated the persistence of your attack.
11. I am told that the fact that the incident happened at night time is an aggravating features. You used the cover of night to commit the offending. At night, no one could see what type of assault was coming.
12. The autopsy report dated 12^th June 2020 confirmed there were slash wounds to both of the deceased’s arm. The wound on the lateral region of the left arm had cut the muscles and the surface of the humerus. There was also a superficial slash wound on the lateral aspect of the left arm. There were two slash wounds on the right arm. One of the wounds expose the muscles. There were abrasion on the left elbow and forearm. There were also abrasions on the shin and feet. The said report confirmed the deceased had sustained a number of injuries.
13. I am further told by the crown that the fact that the assault was jointly carried out by all three of you is also on aggravating feature. According to the facts, you have all taken active part in assaulting the deceased. Your joint assault on the deceased had led to his death. A life had been lost unnecessarily.

Mitigating Factors

14. On your behalf, it was submitted that you have pleaded guilty to the offending at first opportunity. I give you credit for owing up to your offending. Your early guilty plea have also shown genuine remorse on your part. It also shows that you are willing to take full responsibility of your actions. It saves court’s time and resources to conduct a trial into the matter.
15. Your respective antecedent reports had shown that you all have no prior conviction. You are all treated as first offenders.
16. Your youthfulness is another mitigating feature on your behalf. According to your respective antecedent reports, you were all 19 years old at the time of offending. Your youthfulness could have been a contributing factor in your offending. Being young offenders, there is a high possibility for your rehabilitation. Learn from this mistake and try to live a more respectable and dignified life in future.
17. I have noted all of your respective personal circumstances. You all have not gotten far into formal education. That could have also contributed to the offending.
18. I have heard that your families have paid a total of 34 × shell money for the death of the deceased. The aspect of payment of compensation would also shows remorse on your part.
19. Generally I also wish to state that it was the action of the deceased that had caused the situation to escalate to the killing. From the agreed facts, the deceased had taken a canoe belonging to the defendant Casper Maedani’s father without permission. It was also the deceased that stabbed Casper Maedani before he was assaulted with a paddle and cut with a knife.
20. Notwithstanding, there is no justification to take a man’s life like you did. You could have exercised restraint but you did not. Taking into account, my discussion above together with the various cases cited, I am hereby of the view that a 4 years imprisonment is appropriate in this case.
21. I have heard from the agreed facts that it was the defendant Mostyn Sara that inflicted the slash wounds on the deceased. The defendant Casper Maedani and Ben Anisi were the ones that assaulted the deceased with a paddle.
22. Taking into account the aggravating and mitigating features discussed above and the individual culpability of the defendants, I make the following orders.

Orders of the Court

1. The defendants Casper Maedani, Ben Anisi and Mostyn Sara are convicted of one count of manslaughter contrary to section 199 as read with section 21 of the Penal Code (cap 26).
2. The defendant Casper Maedani is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment
3. The defendant Ben Anisi is hereby sentenced to 3 years imprisonment
4. The defendant Mostyn Sara is hereby sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
5. Time spent in pre-trial custody to be deducted from total sentence.
6. Right of Appeal

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge