|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Solomon Islands |
HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
| Case name: | Crown v Farobo |
| | |
| Citation: | |
| | |
| Date of decision: | 2 December 2022 |
| | |
| Parties: | Crown v Ben Farobo, Nathaniel Eric Junior, Stanley Ramo |
| | |
| Date of hearing: | |
| | |
| Court file number(s): | 378 of 2018 |
| | |
| Jurisdiction: | Criminal |
| | |
| Place of delivery: | |
| | |
| Judge(s): | Maina; PJ |
| | |
| On appeal from: | |
| | |
| Order: | 1. The Defendants are sentence as follows: (i) Stanley Ramo is sentence to 14 years imprisonment, (ii) Nathaniel Eric Junior is sentence to 15 years imprisonment; (iii) Ben Farobo is sentence to 15 years imprisonment. 2.Sentences for each Defendant to commence from the day the each Defendant were taken into or remanded in custody for the case, 3. Right of appeal against the sentence as usual. 4. No further orders. |
| | |
| Representation: | Suifa’asia M for the Crown Manebosa SR for ben Farobo Haruari B for Nathaniel Eric Junior Pulekera RD for Stanley Ramo |
| | |
| Catchwords: | |
| | |
| Words and phrases: | |
| | |
| Legislation cited: | Penal Code S 293 (1), |
| | |
| Cases cited: | Selo v Regina [2017] SBA 17 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Criminal Case No. 378 of 2018
CROWN
V
BEN FAOBO, NATHANIEL ERIC JUNIOR, STANLEY RAMO
Date of Sentence: 2 December 2022
Suifa’asia M for the Crown
Manebosa SR for Ben Farobo
Hauari B for Nathaniel Eric Junior
Pulekera RD for Stanley Ramo
SENTENCE
Maina PJ:
The Defendants Ben Farobo, Nathaniel Eric Junior and Stanley Ramo had all pleaded guilty and convicted on the charges of arm robbery contrary to 293 (1) of the Penal Code.
Agreed facts
On 18th January 2016, the Defendants met up and by a car drove to the BSP Bank (former Wespac Back) and stopped there. The Complainant Wilson Deng drove in and packed in front the Kaibai. He got out from the car with a brown sealed with the tape around it. They watched for the Complainant.
The Complaint got out from his car and went to the bank with the case. Stanley Ramo went from the car and ran to the Complainant followed by Nathaniel Eric Junior and Junior David Faiga armed with a bush knife while Ben Farobo sat in the car and waited.
Stanley Ramo grabbed the case from the Complainant. Complainant kicked Ramo but he fell. A second time Complainant kicked Ramo but he fell down again. Simon Situ who accompanied the Complainant ran out from their vehicle to help the Complainant.
During the struggle, the Complainant dropped the case of the money. Junior David Faiga grabbed the case and threw it to Nathaniel Eric Junior and then he threw it again to Stanley Ramo. They ran to the waiting vehicle got in and Ben Farobo drove in escape.
The money was one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) in, consist of $800,000.00 in 100s and $200,000.00 in 50s, and placed in a brown carton similar to Sol brew box. It was for deposit at the BSP bank when the Defendants grabbed and ran away with it.
Defendants shared the money among them:
Penalty
For the offence under section 293 (1) of the Penal Code, the maximum penalty is liable to life imprisonment.
The starting Point
A great sum of money was for deposit at the BSP Bank when the Defendants robbed the handlers of the money at the front of the bank. It appears from the facts that this case is among the category of worse in the situation of our beloved country.
I noted the starting point set by the Court of Appeal in the case of Selo v Regina[1] for the bank robbery on its own would be 15 years.
For this case, the money was for deposit at the bank, occurred at the vicinity of the bank, thus falls in the category of the Selo v Regina case. I am satisfied that by the own facts and circumstances of the case, the appropriate starting point in the sentence is 15 years.
Aggravating Features
Counsel Suifa’asia for Crown in the submission stressed aggravating features of the case:
These reflects the seriousness of the crimes committed by the Defendants and they deserve the tough sentences.
Previous Convictions
Crown counsel submitted that Ben Farobo has no previous conviction except the previous conviction for Stanley Ramo on demanding with menaces and burglary of dwelling house in 2013 and 2016 respectively. For Nathaniel Eric Junior, he has a previous conviction when he was sentence for the same offence of robbery in 2021 for 4 years imprisonment.
Crown Counsel further submitted that it is the type of offence that the court must impose the sentences that must sent the message to them and the community. The message is that any person, who are arm and rob the people off their properties, will be severely punished.
Mitigations
Counsel Pulekera R D submitted that his client Stanley Ramo is 36 years old, married with three children, has no previous conviction and he has pleaded guilty to the charge. He had co-operated with the Police investigation in this case and very remorseful for his action.
Counsel submitted that the court should take into the above mitigation and sentencing submission in the sentence for his client.
Counsel Haruari B for Defendant Nathaniel Eric Junior submitted that his client had pleaded guilty to the charge and it was upon a plea bargain. Counsel asked the court to take into account that his client was 23 years old when he committed the offence and now 29 years and only boy born from a family of six children.
Counsel stated that the court should note in the sentence for his client that it is a common understanding that the young people always make mistake and bad decision in life and his client fall in the category of offenders.
Counsel Manebosa for his client Ben Farobo submits and acknowledged that there were aggravating features by the used of weapon at the robbery and the loss of the money by the owners. It was a well planned and executed as seen in the getaway vehicle. For mitigation, the counsel submitted that his client has a chance of rehabilitation.
The facts of the case shows the way or method employed by the Defendants when they committed the offence. It was a well-planned attack on the money carriers to the bank and eventually the Defendants took the money away from them and then escape with it in a getaway vehicle. All the Defendants had the roles to play in the attack and they had achieved their aims when they took the money and ran with it.
The case involved others but as seen from facts, the three Defendant’s part, were that they took a total sum of $385,000.00 and the Police had managed to recover $254,544.00 from them. A total sum of $130,456 was not recovered.
I noted the aggravating features and mitigations and I will consider them in the consideration of the appropriate sentences for each Defendants. For the guilty pleas by the Defendants, I give them credit for the guilty pleas.
For Stanley Ramo, I give him credit for no previous conviction, co-operated in the Police investigation and his remorseful in the sentence.
For the Defendant Nathaniel Eric Junior, I noted that you had pleaded guilty to your charge after a bargain with the Crown.
The submission by your counsel that your action should fall in the category young offenders always make mistake and bad decision in life or that be mitigating fact. That think by your counsel does not explain anything at all as person of you with a Form 6 formal education can do good or better things that act of senseless person as you had done.
For Ben Farobo you pleaded guilty on the charge and credit to you for that. At the time of the robbery at the bank, you were also armed with a bush knife.
Noting the facts and taking into account the circumstances or method of executing the robbery with the aggravating features and mitigations; I sentence the Defendants to imprisonment as follows:
Orders of the Court
THE COURT
Hon. Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge
[1] [2017] SBCA 17; SICOA-CRAC 9003 of 2017 (13 October 2017)
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2022/125.html