Regina v Sala - Sentence [2015] SBMC 6; Criminal Case 379 of 2015 (1 September 2015)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT )
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT HONIARA )

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 379 of 2015

REGINA

V

JERRY SALA

Prosecution: Palmer of Police Prosecution Office
Defence: Accused in person

Hearing: August 27-28, 2015
Judgment: August 31, 2015
Sentence: September 1, 2015

SENTENCE

1. You are convicted after trial for one count of criminal trespass contrary to section 189 (2) of the Penal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is one year imprisonment. My task now is to decide the appropriate sentence to be imposed on you.
   
2. In your case, I find the following to be aggravating features:
   
   • (a) You planned to carry out this offence as shown in your evidence in Court that you intentionally went there to do God's work.
     
   • (b) You were drunk with SB beer when you entered the fence of the National Parliament premise.
     
   • (c) You illegally entered the premises of the National Parliament - a building ought to be respected by every member of the public.
     
   • (d) You caused fear to Mr. Mathias Olofiaby your aggressive behavior when you hit the rail of the security house twice with your right hand.
     
3. On the other hand, you have no benefit of any remorse since you are convicted after trial. However, you stated that you are a family man with two children. No doubt, you have family responsibility to look after. You are also a first time offender and you have good prospect of rehabilitation. You also worked as a pastor for your church called the Remnant of Israel.
   
4. In this case, you were drunk and decided to go to the parliament in that late evening. You should have known that you went there on a Saturday evening or during a weekend when parliament would not open for public visitation. Not only that, but you reached the fence which indicated to you your turning point because it was restricted from the public. You had every opportunity to think and turn back whilst at the fence. Yet you disregarded that and crawled under the fence without authority and made your way inside that area. Your action shows total disrespect for the premises of the building and can be termed as person having no-care attitude. Further, your action does not reflect well of you as a religious person. This Court must ensure that this type of offending must be discouraged through its deterrent messages. Hence, I find your level of culpability to be at mid-upper range of the seriousness of this type of offence.
   
5. In deciding a sentence, the Court is empowered to utilize the scope of the maximum penalty provided for by legislation. To determine an appropriate sentence each case has to be decided own each own facts after considering all the aggravating, mitigating and personal circumstance of the case. A glean of the past cases fails to serve the community expectations as well as the Court for the need to deter this type of offending. Therefore, the Court must be sensitive to that failure and adjust accordingly. The Court must be seen objectively as an institution that has the faith and trust of the public when it comes to deterring crimes. R v Ball[1]Hilberry J stated:
   

"In deciding the appropriate sentence a Court should be guided by certain considerations. The first and foremost is the public interest. The criminal law is publicly enforced, not only with the object of punishing crime but also in the hope of preventing it. A proper sentence, passed in public, serves the public interest in two ways. It may deter others who might be tempted to try crime as seeming to offer easy money on the supposition, that if the offender is caught and brought to justice, the punishment will be negligible. Such a sentence may also deter the particular criminal from committing a crime again, or induce him to turn from a criminal to an honest life. The public interest is indeed served, and best served, if the offender is induced to turn from criminal ways to honest living."[2]

6. Having carefully taking all these into account and balancing them with the aggravating, mitigating and personal features, the appropriate sentence is 10 months imprisonment. Time spent in custody is to be taken into account.
   
7. Accused has a right to appeal this sentence within 14 days pursuant to section 285 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
   

THE COURT

Augustine Aulanga (Mr)
(Magistrate of the First Class)

---

^[1] (1951) 35 Cr. App. R. 164
^[2] At page 165