R v Gegesi [2024] SBHC 116; HCSI-CRC 25 of 2024 (13 September 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Gegesi
Citation:
Date of decision:	13 September 2024
Parties:	Rex v Stanley Gegesi
Date of hearing:	26 August 2024
Court file number(s):	25 of 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Keniapisia; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	Mr Gegesi, I impose a period of 14 years before you are eligible to apply for parole. This term begins to run from the time you were taken into remand (August 2023). I will sentence you to 4 years for Count 2 (grievous harm). I will make the 4 years sentence to run concurrent with the sentence for Count 1 (murder). Order accordingly.
Representation:
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code [cap 26] S 226, S 224
Cases cited:	Ludawane v Regina [2017] SBCA 23, Bade v R [2023] SBCA 39,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 25 of 2024

REX

V

STANLEY GEGESI

Date of Hearing: 26 August 2024
Date of Decision: 13 September 2024

Counsel: Mr Kelesi (“DPP”) and Ms Naqu for the Crown
Counsel: Mr Ifuto’o for the Defendant

Keniapisia; PJ

PAROLE ENTITLEMENT AND SENTENCE FOR GREVIOUS HARM

1. On the 31/07/2024, I convicted Stanley Gegesi for the murder of late chief Basi. I sentenced Gegesi to life imprisonment. Now I will determine the appropriate punishment for grievous harm, a simultaneous charge, Gegesi was also convicted of on 31/07/2024 premised on his early guilty plea.
2. Whilst I sentenced Gegesi to life imprisonment for murder, it is incumbent on me to also set a minimum time period of life imprisonment that Gegesi must serve before he is entitled to parole. Parole however is a decision entrusted to a different body.
3. The two issues, I must determine are: -
   • 3.1 What is the minimum period of life imprisonment Mr Gegesi must serve before he is entitled to parole?
   • 3.2 What is the appropriate sentence for grievous harm?

Minimum parole period entitlement

4. The leading authority on minimum parole entitlement period is the Court of Appeal case of Ludawane (2017). Ludawane set guidelines for different bands of murder convictions. The highest band for exceptionally serious cases (for example, as in Ludawane - a young helpless victim to whom the offender owed a moral duty as a father, sustained brutal beatings and assaults carried out over 4 days and the sheer brutality of the crime) attracted a start point of 20 years non-parole period (reduced to 18 years for mitigating features in that case). Generally serious murder cases (for example contract killing, politically motivated killing, multiple injuries or vulnerable child or aged victim) should start around 15 years or higher. Less serious cases (for example where people are known to each other or lost their tempers or quarrelled) could start at 12 years non-parole period. The 12 years starting point sentence could reduce if the case came close to the borderline between murder and manslaughter or if the offender was provoked.
5. Although the present case has some aggravating features, it was not a premeditated killing. Mr Gegesi acted recklessly and impetuously in getting a knife and using the knife, when he hit out at his victim, whom he alleged had put his life at risk, by hitting him twice with a piece of timber. I rejected such assertion in the main verdict. His victim was his relative, vulnerable and an old aged male in his 70/80 years.
6. Mr Gegesi would ordinarily have an obligation to protect his old aged victim. In his record of interview, Gegesi continuously referred to his victim as his best granny. And he was sorry for what happened. His victim died from his wound instantaneously. I find this case is in the moderate range of murder or less serious, bordering between murder and manslaughter because it was not premeditated. I will set the starting point sentence at 12 years.
7. I identify the following aggravating factors: -
   • (i) Use of weapon – Gegesi used a weapon which aggravated the assault in 2 ways. First, he cannot claim his blow was immediately impulsive. He took time to get the knife on the ground. He stood up from the ground. He moved closer and grabbed Basi on the neck before he cut Basi’s head, shoulder and back. Second, the knife a deadly weapon, strangely increased the danger of his action delivering multiple knife blows and injuries to his victim’s head, shoulder and back.
   • (ii) The assault occurred in the hours of darkness - At 12 mid-night Gegesi stabbed Basi making it difficult for the victim to anticipate his danger or defend himself.
   • (iii) The victim was vulnerable and weak - Late Basi is an old man aged in his 70/80’s. He was weak and fragile to defend himself against a masculine young and energetic man like Gegesi.
   • (iv) The assault was disproportionate in 2 ways. First a stab to the head, shoulder and back with a bush knife was completely disproportionate to counter any piece of timber Basi may have used. Second the victim was a fragile and weak old man who cannot match up to Gegesi’s strength being a young and energetic 25 years old adult. It was not an equal engagement.
   • (v) Killing took place in the deceased’s home – Deceased’s home should be a safe haven for an elderly man like late Basi. Instead he was cold bloodedly murdered in the comfort of his sleeping bed at night. His home was turned into a horrendous crime scene.
8. Aggravating features in a murder case should generally be counted in substantial steps – in years rather than weeks or months (Bade, Court of Appeal 2023). In this case, I add 6 years (about 1 year for each of the above five aggravating factors) to the non-parole period because of the serious nature of the aggravating features. Accordingly, I raise the non-parole period from 12 to 18 years.
9. There are not many mitigating factors that I can think of or that defence counsel has alerted me to, except for first time offender with no previous conviction and that there was no pre-planning in the offending. This is a case where the aggravating factors far outweigh the mitigation factors. Because of the mitigating factors, I reduce the non-parole period by 4 years. This result in an effective non parole period of 14 years.

Appropriate penalty for grievous harm

10. The maximum penalty for grievous harm is 14 years (Section 226 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 26). By comparison the maximum penalty for acts intended to cause grievous harm under Section 224 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 26) is life imprisonment. The latter is therefore a very serious crime compared to the former, for which Gegesi was convicted. Prosecutor cited Regina -v- Kadi & Others, Court of Appeal 2008 where Court of Appeal put a starting point sentence of 6 years. However, that case concerned a charge for an offence under Section 224 – the very serious crime. For this case involving a less serious crime, I will put the start point sentence at 3 years noting also that the maximum penalty is 14 years. That does not mean the seriousness of the case at hand is ignored. I noted that the bodily impairments the doctor observed on Gegesi’s second surviving victim (Michael) were serious and permanent.
11. Then I will increase the start point to 8 years before mitigation for the same aggravating factors already determined above. Similarly, I will reduce the 8 years by 4 years for the same mitigating factors already mentioned above. That comes to 4 years. I will make this 4-year sentence to run concurrent with the sentence for murder.

Orders

12. Mr Gegesi, I impose a period of 14 years before you are eligible to apply for parole. This term begins to run from the time you were taken into remand (August 2023). I will sentence you to 4 years for Count 2 (grievous harm). I will make the 4 years sentence to run concurrent with the sentence for Count 1 (murder). Order accordingly.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE