R v Lokete [2021] SBHC 2; HCSI-CRC 538 of 2019 (5 February 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Lokete
Citation:
Date of decision:	5 February 2021
Parties:	Regina v Chris Lokete
Date of hearing:	3 February 2021
Court file number(s):	538 of 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird J
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The defendant is convicted on one count of murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code (cap 26). 2. The defendant is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment. 3. The minimum term to be served before the defendant is entitled for parole is one of 10 years. 4. Time spent in pre-trial custody is to be taken into account under order 3 above.
Representation:	Mr. John Wesley Zoze and Mr. Andrew Meioko for the Prosecution Mr. George Gary for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code section 200 [cap 26]
Cases cited:	Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23, R v Sullivan [2005] 1 Cr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 538 of 2019

REGINA

V

CHRIS LOKETE

Date of Hearing: 3 February 2021
Date of Decision: 5 February 2021

Mr. John Wesley Zoze and Mr. Andrew Meioko for the Prosecution
Mr. George Gray for the Defendant

MINIMUM SENTENCE

Bird PJ:

1. The defendant, Mr Chris Lokete is charged with one count of murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code (cap 26). The defendant had initially pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.
2. On the 3^rd February 2021, the defendant was re-arraigned and he entered a guilty plea. He was thereby convicted as charged.
3. For the offence of murder, the maximum sentence that would be imposed upon conviction is the mandatory life imprisonment. Upon conviction, I am then required to rule on a minimum sentence that the defendant would serve in prison before he is entitled for parole. That is a legal requirement imposed on the sentencing judge by following the court of Appeal decision in the case of R v Ludawane (Ludawane case), [2017] SBCA 23, SICOA - CRAC 37 of 2016.
4. In your case, I have noted from the facts that you and the deceased are blood brothers. The deceased is your elder brother. I am told that the relationship between you and your brother went sour following your elder brother’s continuous bulling attitudes towards you. It was after the deceased had damaged your clothes and speaker that you took an axe and waited for the deceased. When the deceased walked past, you held the axe, walked behind him and swung the axe at the back of the deceased head. The deceased fell down and died.
5. The autopsy report prepared by Doctor Roy Maraka dated 23^rd June 2019 showed a laceration at the back of the head measuring 50 by 16 mm. Brain tissues oozed out from the wound. The injury was fatal and caused the death of the deceased.
6. In the case of R v Sullivan [2005] 1 Cr App. R (S.) 67, the Court of Appeal had outlined three categories of sentencing regimes. They included:
   1. Exceptionally high in seriousness, the appropriate sentence would be one of life;
   2. If the level of seriousness is particularly high, the starting point is one of 30 years;
   3. In cases where sentences can be regarded as average, normal or unexceptional, sentences would be around 14 years.
7. Those principles were cited with approval by the Chief Justice in the case R v Ludawane Criminal Case No.233 of 2008.
8. Upon an appeal against sentence to the Court of Appeal, the said Court had ranked each type of murder into three categories. They put the normal starting point at 12 years, the higher starting point at 15/16 years and the very serious cases. They had also factored in five features that aggravate the offending. Those features included the age of the victim, relationship with the offender, obligation of the offender towards the victim, sustained nature of the conduct and sheer brutality against the victim. I adopt the comments by the Court of Appeal in that case.
9. From the above discussion, I have heard from the prosecution that there were a number of aggravating features in your offending. Firstly, it was submitted that there was a level of premeditation before the killing. The manner in which the offending occurred can be seen as a well calculated attack. You waited for the deceased with the axe in your possession. As he walked past, you followed from behind him and executed your plan. You killed your own brother in cold blood.
10. It was further submitted by the prosecution that another aggravating feature in your offending is the use of an axe as the murder weapon. You were armed with the axe before the killing. It is evident from the post mortem report that the nature of the injury sustained was the direct cause of the deceased death.
11. Another aggravating feature is the seriousness of the injury sustained by the deceased. Doctor Maraka had described the wound as very fatal. Your attack on the deceased can be seen as very cruel and vicious. It was obvious that the deceased could not have survived the said attack on him.
12. On your behalf, it was submitted by your lawyer that you have pleaded guilty to the offending at first opportunity. Your early guilty plea had saved time and resources from conducting a trial into this case. Your early guilty plea also shows that you are sorry for what you did. It also means that you have owned up to your offending and you are willing to take responsibility of your actions.
13. You are a person without any previous convictions. You have lived a crime free life until that fateful day when you ruthlessly killed your brother.
14. I have also heard from your lawyer your personal reasons why you have committed this offending. I must however state that those reasons do not take away and do not diminish your criminal responsibility in this case.
15. What you did to your brother on that fateful day is inexcusable. You have allowed your emotions to overtake you and killed your own blood brother. I must state that this is an unfortunate incident between two blood brothers. It was a result of a domestic row that could have been amicably settled by both of you. Your actions have terrorised your immediate family members and members of your community. You have turned the sanctity and comfort of your home to a crime scene. It will take a very long time before members of your family would come to terms with your offending.
16. Having discussed the above principles in the Sullivan and the Ludawane cases together with the aggravating features in your case, I am of the view that the starting point in your case will be one of 12 years. For the mitigating features that were raised in your behalf by your lawyer, I will reduce that sentence by 2 years. I therefore direct that the minimum sentence that you must serve in prison before you will be entitled for parole is one of 10 years.

Orders of the court

1. The defendant is convicted on one count of murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code (cap 26).
2. The defendant is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment.
3. The minimum term to be served before the defendant is entitled for parole is one of 10 years.
4. Time spent in pre-trial custody is to be taken into account under order 3 above.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge