HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Regio 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	16 April 2022	
		
Parties: 	Regina v Angela Regio 	
		
Date of hearing: 		
		
Court file number(s): 	651 of 2019	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Maina; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The accused is sentence to imprisonment:
(i) Count one: Conversion - six months’ imprisonment,
(ii) Count two: Forgery of certain documents with intend to Defraud - five months’ imprisonment,
(iii) Count three: Uttering - five months’ imprisonment,
(iv) Count four: Conversion - three months’ imprisonment and;
(v) Count five: Conversion - three months’ imprisonment,
The total is 22 months
2. The period spent in custody is taken into account in the sentences the accused to be released at the raise of the court.
3. No further order.

Representation: 	Kelesi A E and Tonowane N for Crown 
Pulekera R D for Defence 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:	Penal Code S, 278 (1) (b), S 336 (1) (c), S 343 (1), 	
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Regina v Asuana [1990] SBHC 52, Foli v Reginam [2004] HBHC 34, Regina v Sukina [1996] SBHC 78, Runikera v DPP, Dalo v Reginam ,Kyio v Reginam [2004] SBHC 90,	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 651 of 2019

REGINA 

V

ANGELA REGIO 

Date of Sentence: 16 April 2022

Kelesi A E and Tonowane N for Crown
Pulekera R D for Defence 
SENTENCE 
Maina PJ;
The accused has pleaded guilty and convicted on 3 counts on conversion contrary to section 278 (1) (b) of the Penal Code and one count each on forgery of certain documents with intend to Defraud contrary to section 336 (1) (c) of the Penal Code and Uttering contrary to section 343 (1) of the Penal Code.
Brief Summary of Agreed Facts 
The Defendant was employed by the complainant B-Mobile Vodafone Company Limited of Grand Plaza Building, Town Ground, Honiara in 2020 as an Accounts Payable Officer at the Finance Department.
On the 23rd March 2016, the Complainant issued a cheque of $10,000.00 for the lease rental payments for its client namely Sunil Dhari for WES103. The cheque number is 1970133.
When the Defendant received the cheque, instead of depositing that $10,000.00 to Sunil Dhan’s account, she used the said amount of money for her own purposes without notifying the Complainant and Sunil Dhari. 
On 1st April 2016, the Complainant issues another cheque of $100.00 purposely for market fee. The cheque number is 1970167. When the Defendant received the cheque, she alters the original amount in the cheque of $100.00 to $3,100.00, and utters that cheque knowingly that the amount of $3,100.00 was forged. The Defendant then cashed the cheque of $3,100.00, she used $3,000.00 for her own purposes, and used the $100.00 for the market fee. 
On the 6th May 2016, the Complainant issued another cheque of $99,300.00. This cheque was for security payments for all the Complainant sites in the provinces. The cheque number is 1985544. When the Defendant received the cheque, she deposited the payments to other security sites, except for the two sites namely WES206 and WES207. The payment for each of these two sites was $1,800.00, which totals up to $3,600.00 for both sites. The payment was not used for the intended purposes at the two sites. The Defendant converted the payment of $3,600.00 and used it for her own purposes.
On the 17th May 2016, the Complainant issued another cheque of $2,245.00 for payment for payee Godfrey Gua labelled as GUA109. The cheque number is 1946830. When the Defendant received the cheque, she altered by adding $3,000.00 into the cheque voucher and used the said amount of $3,000.00 for her own purposes.
The Defendant was arrested on 12th February 2018 and charged for the offences, and then released on bail to await her arraignment.
On the 18th October 2019 she and appeared to the court and pleaded guilty to the charges laid against her at the Magistrate Court, and was remanded in custody pending her sentence.
Upon the application by the Prosecutions, her matter was committed to the High Court for further proceedings.
The Penalties
The Penalties for conversion under section 278 of the Penal Code is liable to imprisonment for seven years. For the forgery under 336 (1) (c) of the Penal Code it is a felony, and punishable with imprisonment for life and Uttering contrary to section 343 (1) of the Penal Code is a felony, and shall be liable to the same punishment as if he himself had forged the document.
Submissions of the Crown
Counsel Kelesi A for the Crown made an oral submission on the sentence and stated that he relies or reiterate of the aggravating features of breach of trust and the repeat of the offences.
Submissions of the Defence
The Defence submitted on the sentence that the court to take into account mitigating factors as her personal details being 40 years old, married and mother of four children, form five dropout and financial circumstances as sole-provider in the family. She is remorseful and pleaded guilty on all charges, first time offender and the reconciliation and reimbursement of the money converted by the accused.
On the 29th October 2019, Mr Solomon Maesala (husband of the defendant) on behalf of his wife entered into an agreement with Arvind Autar (the Company Manager) and the total amount of the money that the defendant took was repaid. 
Defendant has spent 1 year 4 months 15 days already in remand.
The Court
Counsel for the Defence referred on the sentences for fraudulent conversion that were previously dealt with by this court. The cases of Regina v Asuana, Foli v Reginam Regina v Sukina. I noted the cases referred to by the counsel and they dealt by the court with their own facts and merits. 
Delay
Counsel for the Defence referred to the cases of Patterson Runikera v DPP, Dalo v. Reginam and Kyio v Reginam. I noted the submission and as stated by Palmer CJ in Kyio v Reginam in the sentence it is:
	“Delay does not eliminate or annul the penalty. The most that can be given to it is to recognize that it must result in a substantial reduction of the sentence which would have been imposed”.
In all respect, I accept the delay in the cases as relevant facet in mitigation and I remind myself any sentence to be imposed defend on the circumstances of each case. 
Reconciliation and Reimbursement
I noted the submission by the defence with the reconciliation and reimbursement of the money. It may be so but I think that would have little effect to any sentence the will impose for this case. It is so as the document tendered to the court shows that the accused had earlier made an agreement with the complainant to reimburse the money but she failed to honour the agreement.
Accused was a payroll officer for B-Mobile Company Solomon Islands Limited and had breach of trust on put on her part and the fact that she had repeatedly converted the money from the company amount to serious conversion of money.  
Taking into account the facts of the case and the submissions by the counsels I am satisfied that she deserves custodial sentence. 
Orders of the Court
1. 	The accused is sentence to imprisonment:
(i) 	Count one: Conversion - six months’ imprisonment,
(ii) 	Count two: Forgery of certain documents with intend to Defraud - five months’ imprisonment,
(iii) 	Count three: Uttering - five months’ imprisonment,
(iv) 	Count four: Conversion - three months’ imprisonment and;
(v) 	Count five: Conversion - three months’ imprisonment,
The total is 22 months
2. 	The period spent in custody is taken into account in the sentences the accused to be released at the raise of the court.
3. 	No further order.
THE COURT
Hon. Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge