R v Iro [2021] SBHC 159; HCSI-CRC 91 of 2018 (10 November 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Iro
Citation:
Date of decision:	10 November 2021
Parties:	Regina v Bilton Iro
Date of hearing:	9 November 2021
Court file number(s):	91 of 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Lawry; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The Accused is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. 3. The Accused is to serve a minimum sentence of 10 years before being eligible to apply for parole. 3. The sentence is to take effect from 11 May 2017.
Representation:	Mr J W Zoze for the Crown Mr L Kwana for the Accused
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:	R v Tom [2020] SBHC 126, Tii v Regina [2017] SBCA 6, Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23, Popoe v Regina [2015] SBCA 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 91 of 2018

REGINA

V

BILTON IRO

Date of Hearing: 9 November 2022
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2021

Mr J W Zoze for the Crown
Mr L Kwana for the Accused

Lawry; PJ

SENTENCE

Introduction

1. Bilton Iro, you have been found guilty of murder. The penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The Court is required to consider the minimum term of imprisonment that you should serve.

Facts

2. On 9 May 2017 you were drinking with the Deceased and others. You had previously lent the Deceased $100.00. After drinking the Deceased went to buy some bread. You followed then walked with him. You asked to be repaid the $100.00. He refused and swore. You had a rock/stone that fitted into your right hand. You hit him with that rock to the back of his head with such force that he was knocked over, he lost consciousness and suffered a fractured skull and bleeding in the area of his head between the skull and the membrane that covers the brain. He suffered from swelling of the brain. You left him where he fell. He died the next day from injuries you caused to his head.

Aggravating features

3. The prosecution submits there are aggravating features which include:
   1. The attack was on an unarmed person;
   2. The offending was at night;
   100. You used a stone as a weapon to assault the Deceased.
4. The prosecution submits that you were affected by alcohol and that being intoxicated cannot be a mitigating factor.

Mitigating features

5. Your counsel submits the following as mitigating features.
   1. You were aged only 19 at the time of the offence. I accept that you were still a teenager and you should therefore receive some credit for that.
   2. Both you and the Deceased were under the influence of alcohol. The prosecution has correctly submitted that an offender being under the influence of alcohol cannot be a mitigating feature, indeed it can be considered an aggravating factor. The fact that the Deceased was affected by alcohol is irrelevant.
   100. There was no pre-meditation. It could be argued that there was in fact some pre-meditation because of your determination to recover the money owed and in picking up the stone you used to strike the Deceased. However, the prosecution was correct to not press such a submission. Lack of pre-mediation is not a mitigating feature, it is the lack of an aggravating feature.
   4. The Deceased was the good friend and or relative of the Accused. This again cannot be a mitigating factor. If anything, it could be considered as an aggravating feature as you have struck your good friend/relative with a stone and killed him.
   5. You have only inflicted a single blow. I reject this as a mitigating factor. Repeated blows could be an aggravating feature but a single blow is not a mitigating factor.
   6. The Deceased did not die straight away on that spot but was unconscious because he was too drunk. This submission must be rejected. There is no basis for submitting the reason he was unconscious was because he had consumed alcohol. He had been hit on the back of the head with a stone weapon with a very forceful blow, sufficient to fracture the skull where it is thick, causing bleeding under the skull and swelling of the brain. This submission must be rejected.
   7. No weapon was involved. This is completely wrong. You used a stone that fitted your right hand as a weapon.
   8. You have no previous convictions.
   9. You are said to be a person of good character and a young man with prospects for rehabilitation. I accept this submission and your frank acknowledgements to the police in your record of interview support this view.
   10. You have had some formal education reaching Form 2. Your counsel submits that as with the previous submission you have a good future before you.
   11. The Deceased swore at you when you asked to be repaid. I regard this as part of the background narrative.
   50. Compensation has been provided to the family of the Deceased in accordance with custom, including 10 red shell money and $14,000.00 cash to show remorse and facilitate reconciliation.
   13. You are said to be remorseful. I accept that your co-operation with the Police reflects remorse on your part.
   14. You were co-operative with the police and took responsibility for what had happened.
   15. You have been in custody since 11 May 2017. This is not a matter of mitigation but needs to be addressed with the sentence to be imposed. I propose following the guidance given in Tii v Regina [2017] SBCA 6 in making sure an allowance is made for the time spent on remand. Your counsel has referred to R v Tom [2020] SBHC 126 which applied the same principle.

Starting point for the minimum term

6. The Court of Appeal in Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23 set out factors to be considered when imposing a minimum term of imprisonment when a sentence of life imprisonment is required to be imposed.
7. Both counsel submit that in terms of the Ludawane judgment this case should have a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment. The Lord Bingham Guidelines adopted by the Court of Appeal in Ludawane described those cases as coming under the “normal” starting point of 12 years as “Cases within this starting point will normally involve the killing of an adult victim, arising from a quarrel or loss of temper between two people known to each other. It will not have the characteristics referred to in paragraph N13. Exceptionally the starting point may be reduced because of the sort of circumstances described in the next paragraph”. In my view none of the circumstances set out in N12 are present in this case. However, the description of the type of case that requires a 12 year starting point is similar to your case.
8. I therefore take a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment.

Discussion

9. Your counsel has referred to Popoe v Regina [2015] SBCA 20 as authority for the deduction for mitigating factors that applied in a case where the Accused was not facing a life sentence having been convicted of manslaughter. One year was deducted from a 7 year starting point.
10. The mitigating factors in your case do justify the Court in making a reduction. You went to trial, however you had co-operated with the Police and shortly after the event showed remorse. You have not previously offended. I therefore propose reducing the minimum term by 2 years. The Court is required to impose life imprisonment which I now do. In accordance with the directions from the Court of Appeal in Ludawane I reduce the minimum term to reflect the mitigating features. This reduction reflects your youth, your previous good character, your remorse and the compensation provided by your family for your offending.
11. The sentence must balance the need for both general and specific deterrence as well as your prospects for rehabilitation. It must recognise that you chose to act as you did and your choice cost the life of another young man.
12. You are sentenced to life imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment before being eligible for parole. I note that you were taken into custody on 11 May 2017. The sentence is to apply from that date.

Orders of the Court

1. The Accused is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
3. The Accused is to serve a minimum sentence of 10 years before being eligible to apply for parole.
3. The sentence is to take effect from 11 May 2017.

By the Court
Justice Howard Lawry PJ