R v Liua [2021] SBHC 60; HCSI-CRC 112 of 2017 (14 April 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Liua
Citation:
Date of decision:	14 April 2021
Parties:	Regina v Edward Sikua Liua
Date of hearing:
Court file number(s):	112 of 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Maina; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The accused is sentence to 7 years imprisonment, 2. Time spent on remand to be ducted from the sentence 3. No further orders.
Representation:	Kelesi A E for Crown Gray SKS for Defence
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 112 of 2017

REGINA

V

EDWARD SIKUA LIUA

Date of Sentence: 14 April 2021

Counsel
Kelesi A E for Crown
Gray SKS for Defence

SENTENCE

Maina PJ:

The Director of Public Prosecutions filed a Nolle Prosequi in respect of an information alleging one count of murder against Edward Sikua Liua. The Director then filed an information alleging one count of manslaughter against him who then pleaded guilty to the amended Information.

The amended information is manslaughter contrary to section 199 of the Penal Code for unlawfully caused the death of Doreen Onga on 18^th October 2016 at Rauni Village North East Guadalcanal, Guadalcanal Province.

Summary of the agreed facts

On Saturday 15^th October 2016 around 5 pm in the evening at Rauni village, North East Guadalcanal, Guadalcanal Province Doreen Onga (wife of the deceased) returned back home from her market at GPPOL.

The accused approached his wife and asked for money but she refused to give him any money. This made the accused angry and he shot the deceased with a husked coconut fruit which landed on her body.

The accused then took a long knife and on its flat side, whipped his wife’s back with it. He then hit her forehead with his hand and kicked her on the stomach, which made her fell down.

The deceased was struggling from the assault by the accused and as the days went by, her health conditions deteriorated from the husband’s assault.

By 18^th October 2016, her condition got worsens and her husband scrapped the buck of a tree, squeezed it and gave her to drink it. With that, the deceased was not able to recover or revive and later died.

A post mortem of the deceased was conducted four days later by Dr Maraka. He was not able to determine the cause of death. However, the doctor also said that despite the absence of significant findings, he could not rule out traumas she sustained contributed to her death.

The doctor further said that it was also possible that undiagnosed or unconfirmed diseased could have contributed to her death as well. Further, Dr Maraka revealed in the Post Mortem report that a child of about 5 months died as well in the deceased’s womb.

Mitigation features

The defendant is 32 years old and left school at Class 3 at Gilo Primary School. He made a living with selling garden vegetables and sometime casual work. With the marriage to deceased they had 5 children, the first child was born in 2005 and last one was born in 2015.

Aggravating features

I noted and consider the following as aggravating factors:

1. The deceased was the wife of the accused, a special relationship with duty to respect each other at all times,
2. Refusing to giving money just earned through market and for the family livelihood then became angry with such violent assault or attack to the deceased with weapon does not make sense to any normal human being,
3. A weapon with a knife used at assault with the attack to the deceased,
4. Two lives or human being that lost from the action of the accused i.e. the deceased and a supposedly child of about 5 months died as well in the deceased’s womb; and
5. And consequently the care of life for the 5 children by their mother and particularly at their childhood is viably needed by them but had been loss forever, even the accused’s duty to care for them will not be available as he has being kept and or imprisonment for his crime.

The maximum sentence for manslaughter under section 199 of the Penal Code is liable to life imprisonment thus any sentence of each case defends on each case’s circumstances.

For the appropriate sentence for the accused in this case, I noted the cases referred to them by both the Crown and defence counsels on the sentences in this jurisdiction and basically they range from between 2 and 7 years imprisonment.

With this case, the conducts and actions or attack by the accused to the deceased when she was trying to find money from the market for the livelihood of the family, just arrived back home was violently or excessively attacked by him with such a disturbing manner cannot be conceded by any right thinking human being. Such resulted to the death of his deceased wife. This accused may be out of his sense.

Taking into account the facts, mitigation, aggravating features, the submissions of the counsel I am satisfied that the accused deserve an imprisonment for his cruel crime a sentence of 7 years imprisonment.

Orders of the Court

1. The accused is sentence to 7 years imprisonment,
2. Time spent on remand to be ducted from the sentence
3. No further orders.

THE COURT
Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge