R v Kevaru [2021] SBHC 61; HCSI-CRC 362 of 2018 (14 April 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Kevaru
Citation:
Date of decision:	14 April 2021
Parties:	Regina v Kevaru
Date of hearing:
Court file number(s):	362 of 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Maina; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Defendant is sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. 2. Period in custody to deducted from this sentence 3. No further orders
Representation:	Suifa’asia M for Crown Kama FB for Defence
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code S 199
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 362 of 2018

REGINA

V

ABRAHAM KEVARU

Date of Judgment: 14 April 2021

Counsel
Suifa’asia for Crown
Kama FB for Defendant

SENTENCE

Maina PJ:

You, Abraham Kevaru was first charged with an alleged charge of murder and later the Director of Public Prosecutions filed a Nolle Prosequi on 29^th March 2021 and then filed amended information of manslaughter contrary section 199 of the Penal Code which pleaded guilty and accordingly convicted on the charge.

Agreed Facts

Briefly, the defendant Abraham Kevaru who is now about 66 years old resided at Yandina Station, Russel Islands, Central Province and the deceased Joseph Ngelea also resided at the Labour Line, Yandina in the Central Islands Province. Both accused and the deceased had known each other very well.

The defendant Abraham Kevaru owns a shop at Yandina Station and on 8 July 2017 he gave his son Carlos Ngelea $50.00 to go and pay five packets of sugar at the defendant’s shop.

The deceased’s son went to the shop and the defendant’s wife was the shop keeper. The wife told deceased’s son that if he buys two packets of sugar, the price of the one sugar will be $8.00. And if he buys five packets the price of one packet will be $10.00.

The deceased’s son then bought 5 packets of sugar and went back home without any money change. The deceased told his son to take the sugar back to the shop and refund the $50.00.

The deceased son went back to the shop to refund the packets of sugar but the defendant told him that he cannot refund the packet sugar. The deceased’s son returned to his father and told him the deceased that the sugar cannot be refunded. The deceased took the 5 packet of sugar and went himself to the defendant’s canteen for a refund.

When the deceased came to the canteen, Mr. Kevaru was peeling out cassava’s skin with a small knife. The defendant was still in possession with the small knife in his hand when he attended to the deceased at the front canteen counter.

The deceased continued to demand the return his money and the defendant placed his right hand with the knife on the counter whilst bending down reaching out with his left hand to collect the money.

While bending down, the deceased grabbed the defendant’s shirt pulling him closer to the counter and they struggled. Whilst struggling, the defendant’s body moved forward as well as his right hand with the knife and ended up inflicting a stab to the deceased’s chest.

The stab wound lead to the cause of death of the deceased.

The medical examination on the body of the deceased by Dr Roy Maraka on 9 July 2017, confirmed the deceased died from bleeding in the abdominal cavity which exuded into the left chest cavity, due to the stab wounds into the chest and abdominal cavities.

Aggravating Features

The aggravating factors was the use of weapon, a small knife held by the defendant and during the struggle and inflicted on the deceased chest. However it is also noted the defendant was the instigator to the when the defendant was bending down, he grabbed the defendant’s shirt and pulled him closer to the counter and they struggled.

Mitigation

The defendant is 66 years and a family man with 3 children. It is also noted the defendant has been in custody since he was arrested for the offence.

I also noted the defendant’s relatives gave $5,000.00 and live pig to the families of the deceased as compensation however I take this as an obligation by them that they live close to each other and to ensure that peace and harmony remain among them and let the law take its course.

Counsel for the defence referred to the sentences on manslaughter cases and submitted that the period by him on remand for this case should be sufficient for his sentence and the defendant be released at the rising of the court. Both Counsels provided to the court case authorities to assist the court on the sentencing starting points however such cannot be treated as tariff. In this case a weapon was used by the accused that injured the deceased and the starting point for the sentence is 7 years imprisonment.

I take into account all the submissions by both counsel and when considering the circumstances of this case I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence for this accused is 6 years imprisonment.

Order of the Court

1. Defendant is sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
2. Period in custody to deducted from this sentence
3. No further orders

THE COURT
Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge