R v Manassah [2022] SBHC 89; HCSI-CRC 72 of 2020 (4 November 2022)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Manassah
Citation:
Date of decision:	4 November 2022
Parties:	Rex v John Manassah, R v Sonny Bakua
Date of hearing:	23 October 2022
Court file number(s):	72 of 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. On the conviction for murder. Mr Manassah and Mr Bakua are hereby sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. Mr Manassah and Mr Bakua are to serve the minimum term of 11 ½ years imprisonment before they can be released on parole. 3. The time spent is pre-trial custody to be deducted from the total sentence. 4. Right of appeal.
Representation:	Ms. Rachael Olutimayin for the Crown Mr. Benham Ifuto’o for John Manassah Mr Ben Alasia for Sonny Bakua
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited:	Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23, R v Sullivan [2005] 1 Cr App,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 72 of 2020

REX

V

JOHN MANASSAH

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 343 OF 2021

REX

V

SONNY BAKUA

Date of Hearing: 23 October 2022
Date of Decision: 4 November 2022

Ms Rachael Olutimayin for the Crown
Mr. Benham Ifuto’o for John Manassah
Mr Ben Alasia for Sonny Bakua

SENTENCE

Bird PJ:

1. These two defendants were both convicted by this court for the offence of murder on the 14^th October 2020. After conviction, I am now required to consider the minimum sentence that you must both serve in prison before you 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:
   • (a) The normal starting point, i.e., 12 years imprisonment
   • (b) The higher starting point of 15/16 years, and
   • (c) 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 this, I will now discuss the aggravating and mitigating features in each of your cases. It is submitted by the learned DPP that there are several aggravating features in your case. It is submitted that the use of knives, a lethal weapon is very dangerous. The two injuries on the deceased were irreversible. The wounds were very serious and had directly led to the death of the deceased. It is further noted that the deceased was unarmed at the material time. She was a 60 year old woman and according to Dr Maraka’s autopsy report, she could have been attacked unaware. I have found as a fact in my judgment that the attack on the deceased was done out of anger. It is very serious that two of you attacked the deceased with two bush knives and a life was cut short unnecessarily. It is further submitted by the learned DPP that you were not remorseful because after inflicting serious wounds on the deceased’s left elbow and left leg, you both ran away.
5. On behalf of Mr Manassah, it is submitted by Mr Ifuto’o of counsel that you are about 53 years old. You are married with 10 children, two of which are now deceased. You have no formal education but you were able to support your big family through subsistence farming. Some of your children are currently attending Primary and Secondary Schools. You are a first offender without any criminal history. You co-operated with the police and allowed yourself to be arrested on the date of the incident. It is noted that following the incident, you have lost your properties at your village.
6. In Mr Bakua’s case, it is submitted by Mr Alasia of counsel that you are 48 years old. You are married with 7 children. You are self-employed and a member of the South Seas Evangelical Church. You are a first offender without any criminal history.
7. 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 lawyers. 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 two serious wounds were inflicted on the deceased. I must however also note that each of these defendants inflicted one single wound each on the deceased. It is on that basis that I would put your starting point on the normal range of 12 years. For the aggravating features including the gravity and seriousness of the injuries on the deceased, I will increase the starting point by 14 months. For the mitigating features for each of you and especially your clean criminal history and your age, I would reduce the sentence by 20 months. Total minimum sentence to serve would therefore be one of 11 years and 6 months.

Orders of the court

1. On the conviction for murder. Mr Manassah and Mr Bakua are hereby sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. Mr Manassah and Mr Bakua are to serve the minimum term of 11 ½ years imprisonment before they can be released on parole.
3. The time spent is pre-trial custody to be deducted from the total sentence.
4. Right of appeal.

THE COURT
JUSTICE MAELYN BIRD
PUISNE JUDGE