R v Iro [2022] SBHC 131; HCSI-CRC 316 of 2019 (16 December 2022)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Iro
Citation:
Date of decision:	16 December 2022
Parties:	Rex v Henly Ramo Iro
Date of hearing:	9 December 2022
Court file number(s):	316 of 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. For the conviction of murder, you are hereby sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. I further order that the minimum sentence that must serve before you are entitle to parole is one of 10 years imprisonment 3. The time spent is pre-trial custody is to be deducted from the total minimum sentence. 4. Right of appeal.
Representation:	Mrs Olivia Ratu Manu for the Crown Mr Ben Alasia for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
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. 316 of 2019

REX

V

HENLY RAMO IRO

Date of Hearing: 9 December 2022
Date of Decision: 16 December 2022

Mrs Olivia Ratu Manu for the Crown
Mr Ben Alasia for the Defendant

SENTENCE

Bird PJ:

1. The defendant has been convicted for the offence of murder by this court. After conviction, I am now required to consider the minimum sentence that he must serve in prison before he could be released on parole. See the case of Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23, SICOA-CRAC 37 of 2016.
2. To assist me in my determination, I am guided by the principles set out in the case of R v Sullivan [2005] 1 Cr App which was approved and noted by the Court of Appeal in the Ludawane case. In that case, three starting points were discussed marking the range of seriousness, covering the broad spectrum of gravity of the offence of murder. The three starting points are:
   1. The normal starting point, ie,12 years imprisonment
   2. The higher starting point of 15/16 years, and
   3. The very serious cases of 30 years and above.
3. In the Ludawane case, the Court of Appeal had specified factors that must be considered by the courts in deciding whether an offending is very serious. It was highlighted that the killing of an adult victim, arising from a quarrel between two people known to each other attracts a normal starting point of 12 years. The court also highlighted that when multiple injuries are inflicted on the victim by the defendant and the victim was in a vulnerable position, that would attract a higher starting point of 15/16 years.
4. Having stated the principles applicable in such cases as the current one, I will now discuss the aggravating and mitigating features in your case. It is submitted by Mrs Manu for the crown that there are several aggravating features in your case. It is submitted that the use of stones is dangerous. It is obvious that the stone that you used to shoot with had caused serious injury on the deceased and he had died as a result. It is also clear from the evidence that the deceased was unarmed. He was just laying down on a hammock with his mobile phone when the stone hit him on the side of his head. It is further noted from the evidence adduced in court that your action was done out of anger. You were also drunk on that occasion. These factors are considered as aggravating features in your case. It is also noted that the incident occurred in your own neighbourhood. The person killed is your cousin and it could have been your own brother Robert if the stone you threw had hit him.
5. On your behalf, it is submitted by Mr Alasia of counsel that you were 21 years at the time of the incident. You are now 23 years old which means that you are a youthful offender. You are a member of the South Seas Evangelical Church and at the time of the incident you were a bus driver. It is further submitted that you are a first time offender without any previous conviction. I have also noted that you have co-operated well with the police during investigation. It is further submitted by your lawyer that there was a reconciliation held between the deceased’s family and your family members. The incident for which you are charged happened on the 21^st February 2019. The reconciliation was held on the 22^nd February 2019 on the very next day. A total of 11 custom shell money and cash of $8,700.00 was given to the deceased family. That reconciliation ceremony had mended the mutual relationship between your family and the deceased family. It is further submitted that you are sorry for what you did to the deceased. The deceased is your first cousin and a good friend. You have never intended to cause him any harm and even death. It was a very sad and unfortunate incident. My advice to you is to rethink about your future attitude and behaviour towards others and try and refrain from taking alcoholic drinks. Had you been sober minded on that day, this might not have happened to you.
6. Having noted the aggravating features and your personal circumstances, I have noted and taken into account the comparative cases discussed by both counsel for the crown and your lawyer. I have also noted and took into account the sentencing regimes enunciated in the Sullivan case and applied by the Court of Appeal in the Ludawane case. After having considered all of the above matters, I am of the view that the starting point in your case should be the normal starting point of 12 years imprisonment. I have noted that the deceased was killed from a single shot of stone thrown by yourself. For the aggravating features discussed above, I will increase the starting point by 12 months. For the mitigating features and especially your clean criminal history and your age, I would reduce the sentence by 36 months. Total minimum sentence to serve would therefore be one of 10 years.

Orders of the court

1. For the conviction of murder, you are hereby sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. I further order that the minimum sentence that must serve before you are entitle to parole is one of 10 years imprisonment
3. The time spent is pre-trial custody is to be deducted from the total minimum sentence.
4. Right of appeal.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge