R v Baeta [2021] SBHC 174; HCSI-CRC 319 of 2020 (17 September 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Baeta
Citation:
Date of decision:	17 September 2021
Parties:	Regina v Misila Baeta
Date of hearing:	9 September 2021
Court file number(s):	319 of 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Palmer, CJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Convict the defendant of the offence of manslaughter. 2. Impose sentence of 3 years. 3. Direct that the period spent in remand in custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.
Representation:	Mr J.W Zoze for the Crown Mr. H. Kausimae and O. Limeniala (assisting)
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Blackstones Criminal Practice 1999 page 12,
Cases cited:	R v Stuart and Williams [1979] 1 Cr App R (s) 228, R v Shelton [1979] 1 Cr .App R (s) 120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 319 of 2020

REGINA

V

MISILA BAETA

Date of Hearing: 9 September 2021
Date of Sentence: 17 September 2021

Mr J.W Zoe for the Crown
Mr. Kausimae and O. Limeniala for the Defence

Palmer CJ.

1. You were initially charged with murder but after close of prosecution’s case and a submission of no case was filed, I upheld the submission of no case in relation to the murder charge but found evidence in support of a lesser offence, that of manslaughter.
2. A new information was then filed by the Crown and you were given opportunity to plead to the charge. At your arraignment on Thursday 9^th September, you entered a guilty plea.
3. A brief summary of facts has been produced and sentencing submissions and mitigation heard.
4. Although you have been acquitted of the charge of murder and now convicted of a lesser offence, manslaughter, this is still a serious charge reflected by the maximum sentence of a life imprisonment, which the court can impose, depending on the circumstances of each case and the presence of aggravating and mitigating features. Its seriousness is also reflected by the fact that a life has been lost and taken away by your unlawful action. “English law has always regarded the death of a man as an offence of great gravity, although the circumstances in which death is caused are manifestly relevant to assessing the degree of criminal responsibility and wickedness.”^[1]
5. There are obviously varying degrees of manslaughter, with sentences ranging from 2 – 10 years, depending on the seriousness of the facts of each case and level of culpability^[2]. The offence of manslaughter, almost more than any other offence, varies in degree, from near murder at one extreme to almost an accident on the other^[3]. Each case is to be dealt with on its own merits and appropriate sentences imposed. The Court however does take into account cases of similar facts to assist in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
6. In the Court of Appeal case of Rongodala v Regina^[4], the Court noted:
   • “It can be said that there are many grades of seriousness when it comes to the offence of manslaughter. In determining the appropriate penalty many factors have to be taken into account. Without suggesting that these are the only considerations, ordinarily a Court would have regard to the age of the offender, previous criminal history of the offender particularly whether there are previous convictions involving violence, provocation, intoxication, type of weapon if any used, persistence of the attack, vulnerability of the victim, and the relationship between the parties.”
7. I note the circumstances of offending in this case, which sadly involved a confrontation arising from the use and abuse of alcohol with tragic consequences. An altercation had ensued when you reacted angrily to the deceased victim, kicking him in the stomach from which a struggle occurred. During the struggle you pushed him causing both of you to fall off the rails from the veranda of a high house that you and the deceased had been drinking alcohol earlier that Christmas day.
8. That fall resulted in fatal injuries to be caused, the Deceased breaking his neck bones and becoming a quadriplegic, paralysed from the neck down. It appears that the fall also caused injuries to his stomach intestines which did not become obvious immediately but over a period of a couple of days. This had been compounded by the fall and resulting in further complications arising and his condition and health deteriorating with death occurring after about ten days.
9. Your reactions were unlawful, you could have reacted in a more understanding and empathetic manner but instead you jumped at him, kicked him in the stomach and as a result you both had a struggle. That was unlawful and unwarranted, and eventually resulting in the Deceased’s death. That fall is consistent with you being the aggressor, the Deceased falling backwards and you falling on top of him.
10. I thank Counsel for taking the time to provide written submissions and succinctly summarising case authorities for my consideration. I have taken time to carefully consider those cases as well to assist me in reaching an appropriate sentence in this case.
11. I would place this case in the lower range for purposes of considering the appropriate sentence to be imposed.
12. I take note of your personal circumstances, set out in detail in the written submissions^[5] of your lawyer that you are young and single and prospects of rehabilitation are good.
13. I note you have no previous conviction, this is your first encounter with the law and credit is given for that. You have cooperated well with police throughout while on bail and being faithful in attending court.
14. I give credit for your guilty plea, given at the earliest opportunity after prosecution’s case had been closed and a finding made that there is sufficient evidence to put you to your defence on the lesser charge of manslaughter. This is consistent with remorse and being sorry for the unintended death of a close relative.
15. Sadly again the abuse of alcohol has resulted in tragic consequences for you, the Deceased and family members. I hope you taken time to reflect on what has happened and made changes for your life.
16. I accept the attack or assault was not pre-meditated or planned, no weapon was used, that it occurred on the heat of the moment and out of a state of being inebriated with alcohol. You had been drinking for quite some time throughout that day. It occurred as a result of something which the Deceased spoke to you about and you became upset and angry about it.
17. I am also satisfied compensation has been paid and reconciliation in custom effected between your families. This is a further mitigating factor and paves the way for your re-integration and acceptance back into your community after your release from prison.
18. I am satisfied this case falls within a range of 3 – 5 years and which will increase or be reduced depending on the presence of aggravating and or mitigating factors. The facts in this case fall within the lower scale of sentences.
19. Taking everything into account, including the aggravating and mitigating factors I am satisfied this case attracts a sentence of 3 years. Any period spent in pre-trial custody however is to be deducted from the total sentence.

Orders of the Court:

1. Convict the defendant of the offence of manslaughter.
2. Impose sentence of 3 years.
3. Direct that the period spent in remand in custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.

The Court.

---

^[1] Per Cumming-Bruce L.J. in R. v. Stuart and Williams [1979] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 228 (Park and Smith J.).
^[2] Blackstones Criminal Practice 1999 page 120: ".... Such offences vary very widely in culpability and circumstances".
^[3] R. v. Shelton [1979] 1 Cr. App. R (S.) 202, per Roskill L.J., Bristow and Michael Davies JJ.
^[4] [2006] SBCA 2; CA-CRAC 008 of 2006 (25 May 2006).
^[5] Page 11 of written submissions filed 10 September 2021.