R v Manebona [2021] SBHC 130; HCSI-CRC 344 of 2021 (20 October 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Manebona
Citation:
Date of decision:	20 October 2021
Parties:	Regina v Mathew Kosa Manebona
Date of hearing:	15 October 2021
Court file number(s):	344 of 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Lawry; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The Defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. He is to serve a minimum term of 11 years and six months before being eligible for parole. 3. The sentence commences from 5 April 2021.
Representation:	Mrs E V Hilly and Ms G Waletofea for the Crown Mr B Ifuto’o for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code S 200, S 24 (2)
Cases cited:	Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Anderson [2002] UKHL 46, Regina v Fiuka [2021] SBHC 4, Regina v Wale [2021] SBHC 2, Regina v Lokete [2021] SBHC 2, Regina v Sai [2020] SBHC 45,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 344 of 2021

REGINA

V

MATHEW KOSA MANEBOSA

Date of Hearing: 15 October 2021
Date of Decision: 20 October 2021

Mrs E V Hilly and Ms Waletofea for the Crown
Mr B Ifuto’o for the Defendant

SENTENCE

1. On 12 October the Court found you guilty of murder, you were convicted and remanded for sentence. You now appear for sentence. Section 200 of the Penal Code requires me to sentence you to life imprisonment. In addition, I am required to consider the minimum sentence that is to be served before you are eligible for parole.
2. The Deceased died from a stab wound you inflicted to his rib area. That wound punctured his lung and he died from bleeding into his lung area. You also cut his head with two slashes and cut his upper arm and twice cut his forearm. The cuts to his forearm may have been suffered when you were striking the head of the Deceased and he was defending himself. The weapon you used was a knife which you had retrieved from the kitchen. The knife was sharpened on both sides so that it resembled a dagger. You were angry with the Deceased and at one stage both you and the Deceased armed yourselves with stones. Those stones were discarded but you nevertheless struggled with him and cut him using the knife. One slash to the head caused a fracture to the skull. The Court rejected your claim of self-defence.
3. The prosecution points to the use of the knife and the fact that multiple injuries were inflicted on the Deceased. The prosecution also records that the Deceased was unarmed and that the attack was out of anger and jealousy. Finally the prosecution submits that the relationship between yourself and your cousin brother in the village where you both lived was something to be considered as aggravating features.
4. You are nearly 34 years of age. You are a cousin brother of the Deceased. You are single and unemployed. I am advised that although you fled straight after you stabbed the deceased, you returned, knowing the Police would be looking for you. You were arrested on 5 April, the same day as you stabbed the Deceased.
5. Section 24 (2) of the Penal Code has been raised by your counsel. That section does not apply to you as a conviction for murder requires the Court to impose life imprisonment. Section 24(2) is only relevant where a person is liable to life imprisonment as a maximum sentence such as manslaughter. Your counsel and the prosecution both correctly referred the Court to the Court of Appeal decision of Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23 where the Court of Appeal at paragraph [15] adopted the following passage from R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Anderson [2002] UKHL 46: “...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 licence...”
6. The Court of Appeal adopted three categories as starting points for fixing the minimum term to be served. The first is the normal starting point of 12 years. The second is a starting point of 15/6 years for cases where the offender’s culpability was exceptionally high, or the victim was in a particularly vulnerable position. The third starting point is reserved he most serious cases. I do not consider your case as falling into that category.
7. The prosecution submitted that the starting point should be in the second of these categories bearing in mind the number of slash wounds you inflicted on the Deceased. In the prosecution submission the killing arose out of jealousy. It was inflicted in the home village of the Deceased and you are a close relative of the deceased.
8. Your counsel has referred the Court to three cases that have similarities to your case. In Regina v Fiuka [2021] SBHC 4 the High Court imposed a minimum sentence of 16 years following the offender stabbing his wife nine times in the presence of his two daughters. The starting point was 18 years and was reduced to 16 years to take account of mitigating features.
9. In Regina v Wale [2021] SBHC 2 the offender used a knife on two victims. One of those died from the stab wounds inflicted by the offender. The second victim received an injury to his left wrist. The Court took a starting point of 12 years and increased it to 14 years before considering mitigating features.
10. In Regina v Lokete [2021] SBHC 2 the offender killed his brother with an axe. He pleaded guilty to murder. There was considerable provocation from the Deceased including continuous bullying and following the deceased damaging clothing and a speaker belonging to the offender. The Court took a starting point of 12 years and reduced the minimum period to 10 years to reflect the mitigating features.
11. The prosecution has also referred the Court to Regina v Sai [2020] SBHC 45. The Court found the case fell within the second category. Multiple wounds were inflicted by the offender on his wife. She died from blood loss. The wounds were inflicted on the victim as part of on-going domestic violence. The Court imposed a minimum term of 15 years following a guilty plea and the payment of compensation to the family of the deceased.
12. In my view the case of Sai was significantly more serious than in your case because of the domestic violence involved and the number of wounds inflicted in the presence of a young child at night when members of the household were sleeping.
13. I consider your offending falls in the first category. I take a starting point of 12 years. I regard the nature of the weapon and striking the Deceased who you knew to be unarmed as aggravating. I consider that the number of blows inflicted, targeting the ribs on the left side of the chest, then the head, with sufficient force to fracture the skull that your intention was to kill, not just to cause really serious harm. For the aggravating features I increase that starting point by 18 months. I record that you were convicted after trial. That is not an aggravating factor but it means you are not entitled to the credit that some others receive where a guilty plea has been entered.
14. You are however nearly 34 years of age and have not previously been convicted. You were co-operative with the Police in the sense that you waited for them to come to arrest you. For the mitigating features I allow a reduction of 2 years. You are therefore sentenced to life imprisonment. You will serve a minimum sentence of eleven years and six months commencing from 5 April 2021.

Order of the Court

1. The Defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. He is to serve a minimum term of 11 years and six months before being eligible for parole.
3. The sentence commences from 5 April 2021.

By the Court
Justice Lawry
Puisne Judge