HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Meloli	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	28 July 2023	
		
Parties: 	Rex v George Meloli 	
		
Date of hearing: 	27 July 2023	
		
Court file number(s): 	484 of 2017	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Faukona; DCJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The Defendant George Meloli is hereby sentenced to 2 years and 7 months on the charge of assault causing actual bodily harm (in fact causing death) according to section 245 of the Penal Code.	
		
Representation: 	Mrs O Manu for the Crown 
Mr F Kama for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code S 200, S 191 (1), S 245	
		
Cases cited:	Regina v Chachia [2012] SBHC 145, Kilatu v Regina [2005] SBHC 118, Kunia v Regina [2005] SBHC 60, R v Kiloa [2022] SBHC 32, Regina v Olofia [2018] SBHC 12, Foli v Reginam [2004] SBHC 34, Kelesiwasi V the Queen [2005] SBHC 83, Regina V Fakatonu [1990] SBHC 34, Regina v Raha [2005] SBHC 69	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 484 of 2017

REX

V

GEORGE MELOLI

Date of Submission: 27 July 2023
Date of Sentence: 28 July 2023

Mrs O Mau for the Crown 
Mr F Kama for the Defendant 
SENTENCE AFTER PLEA OF GUILTY 
Faukona DCJ: The Defendant Mr. G. Meloli with two co-defendants were originally charged for one count of Murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal code. His two friends were discharged and the information on murder was nollied. 
2.	He was then charged with Manslaughter contrary to section 199 (1) of the Penal Code. Again that charge was nollied on 25th July 2023. He is now charged with further amended information of Assault Causing Actual bodily Harm Contrary to section 245 of the Penal Code.
Relevant facts (history and background).
3. 	The facts or circumstances surrounding the offending are, that on the 5th day of May 2017, at Raupono village, North Guadalcanal, the defendant and his uncle the late David Gena were having few beers.
4. 	Then the defendant proceeded to see his brother-in-law Mr. Patrick Kendy Sota and Mr. Mana Hilly who were just arrive in a car.
5. 	Little later the Defendant went to the kitchen and asked Ms. Philistus Meta where about was his wife. Ms. Meta told him, his wife was in her house under the high floor.
6. 	The Defendant then shouted to his wife “how! how!” After shouting his brother in law Mr. Patrick Kennedy ran towards him and asked why he was shouting and he banged his head on the Defendant’s head and held on tight to the Defendant and lifted his body up.
7. 	Apparently a scuffle was ensured between the Defendant and his uncle Mr. Patrick Kenedy. Whilst both men were fighting, the deceased asked the Defendant why he argued and fight with his brother in-law Mr. Patrick. Then Defendant then turned around with one punch with his right hand closed fist delivered to the face of the deceased.
8. 	The deceased immediately fell to the ground and could not get up. In other words his soul was restored into another world, dead.
9. 	The defendant then assisted the decease by washing his body and wheelbarrowed him to the main road to catch a transport to travel to the Hospital. He did find a car which assisted both men to travel to Good Samaritan Hospital. The deceased was later pronounced dead at the hospital.
	General assessment of the assault.
10. 	I would appreciate the Counsels have concurred that a one single blow of close fist delivered floored the decease to this death.
11. 	There is no evidence of any weapon use, no evidence of any intervening factor that will hasten and dramatized the death of the deceased so soon. Nor any speculation that the force of one blow was an act of any supernatural instinct endowed within the nature being of the Defendant. As such is difficult to proof in evidence.
12. 	The medical report concluded by not verifying the actual cause of death. Therefore the cause of death remain dwindle and I do not know, in the circumstances, whether Dr. Maraka could be able to sign a death certificate.
13. 	All that I can note from Doctor’s finding is hemorrhage in the left orbit, where the eye was located. It indicated that there was probably trauma to the left eye.
14. 	Another haemorrhage was identified on the right side of the neck.
15. 	However, where the Doctor stated that the death is undetermined, simply mean two hemorrhages located on the left orbit in the eye and on right side of the neck are not possible cause of death. So the cause of death remains a mistry.
16. 	But that cannot take away and relief the Defendant from being a perpetrator. There is no evidence that deceased was previously suffered from any disease.
17. 	The Defendant has accepted his wrong doing that he is sorry and advocated not to repeat the same, and now a responsible father of 3 kids who would like to see family is sustained and have good progress in to the future. And so he becomes a trade of vegetables by the way.
18. 	However the saddest part of the episode is the indulgent of alcohol.  Often it is heavily advocated that use and consumption of alcohol is condemned. Once used or consumed will reduce all manner of consciousness of human to a lower degraded level.
19. 	People and entertainers do not realized until something went wrong. Then they rush to the Court to say sorry, I am now a changed man, a family and responsible man. I am good past character. This is my first offending. I have endured hardship of shame and sorrow.
20. 	As a living soul are you not considering those things at the time of consuming alcohol? Have you forgotten yourself and your status in the Community? Or has something blacken your eyes not to see the realities.
21. 	No wonder the message of deterrent often flows from the months of the Courts, again and again, yet it seems no one bothers, no one take heed, business as usual.
22. 	By far the Courts have done their part in interpreting the law, imposing deterrent sentences with hope Communities in this country respond positively and impose self-restraining attitude. 
23. 	All of us want to enjoy living in a peaceful atmosphere and community and nation, without fear of any infringement of our rights. 
24. 	Let that be a message to the citizen of Solomon Islands.
25. 	In any event I have considered all the mitigating features submitted on behalf of the Defendant and balance out.
26. 	The Crown’s position is very simple. The major aggravating feature is that a living beings life evaporated in thin air and gave up its ghost because of the reckless assault by the Defendant.
27. 	A dead being has no equal definition to someone who was assaulted and sustain bodily harm but who can be cured by medical treatment.
28. 	Practically, in all circumstances so far, assault causing harm to the body match the charge under S. 245 of penal code which is treatable.
29. 	In the current case no human treatment can cure the harm done to the deceased. It is untreatable. Correspondingly no one can revive the deceased into a living being.
30. 	Those are the legal difficulties the Defendant encounter in this case.
31. 	Quite apart from that there is no evidence of any reconciliation have been done. A mere remorse in a version of sorry is ineffective where life was taken. 
32. 	At least as would normally expected some form of values should be transacted, yet nothing done, no evidence to affirm.
Sentencing Principles.
33. 	In any event I am urged to consider a number of case authorities which the Court has imposed sentences for assault causing bodily harm.
34. 	In Kilatu V R the sentence is 2 years following guilty plea. In R v Chachia, 18 months imprisonment which the Court of Appeal confirm. In R V Pature a sentence of 1 year was imposed.
35. 	In Kunia V Regina substituted sentence of 18 months instead of 1 year. In the case of Kelesiwasi V the Queen a sentence of 2 years was imposed. 
36. 	In the case of Regina V Olofia a sentence of 2 years was imposed. The sentence is part of series of multiple of sentences the court imposed. The same appear in the case of Regina V Raha where a sentence of 12 months was imposed for ACABH. This offence was occurred in the context of rape.
37. 	In the case of Regina V Fakatonu a sentence of 4 month imprisonment was accelerated by the High Court to 12 months.  In the case of R V Kiloa a sentence of 2 years was imposed but due to 6 months delay and term spent in custody the Defendant is released and free at the rising of the Court.
38. 	Lastly I observe the issue of delay. I noted the delay in this case is not caused by the Defendant but by the system. In the case of Foli V R, quoted by the defense dealt with fraudulent conversion, a 5 years delay before offence and charging. The Court stated a long custodial sentence is bound to have a severe effect on his new life or crashing effect on him.
39. 	In any event 6 years delay period had contributed to the Defendant’s benefit. A lot of consideration and decision had been taken to reduce the information twice. In the end the Defendant was charged for a much lesser offence ACABH with maximum punishment of 5 years, instead of a felony of murder and manslaughter.
40. 	In all the sentences available as references, only one out of 9 case authorities imposed 3 years imprisonment otherwise sentences range from 1 – 2 years.
41. 	The circumstances of this case is different from all other cases. In those cases harm sustained were curable medically. In this case harmed caused is death and cannot be cured on revived.
42. 	Therefore upon weighing the aggravating and mitigating features I concluded by imposing a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Deducting 2 years and 3 months the Defendant served in custody, leaves him to serve imprisonment sentence of 3 years and 7 months. Even so this is not worthy of a death victim.
	Order of Court:
1.	The Defendant George Meloli is hereby sentenced to 2 years and 7 months on the charge of assault causing actual bodily harm (in fact causing death) according to section 245 of the Penal Code. 
The Court.
Justice Rex Faukona.
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE.