Regina v Zoni [2016] SBMC 10; Criminal Case 655 of 2015 (25 April 2016)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT HONIARA
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No: 655 OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF SENTENCE FOLLOWING GUILTY PLEA

BETWEEN:

REGINA

AND:

JEREMY ZONI

Prosecution: Mr. A. Maelanga of Police Prosecutions Office (PPO)

Defence: Mr. M. Holara of Public Solicitors Office (PSO)
Plea Date: April 7, 2016
Sentencing submissions: April 21, 2016
Sentence Delivered: April 25, 2016

SENTENCE

1. You pleaded guilty to one count of warehouse breaking contrary to section 300(a) of the Penal Code. It has a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
   
2. The facts of your case revealed that between 3^rdand 4^th of July 2015 at an unknown hour during night, you and your other co-accused Aloysius Wale Bara broke and entered a warehouse building owned by the complainant Mr. Cheng. That building was located along the Prince Philip Highway at Kukum in Honiara. Before the actual break-in, you first climbed a mango tree to reach the roof of that building. When you reached the roof, you cut the copper or the roofing iron with a tin snip sky blue cutter in order to create a hole for your entry. You then entered the interior of the roof through that hole and further made your way between the piles of masonitesunder the roof and successfully entered inside that building. Both of you then removed and escaped with following properties:
   
   • 2 packets of overseas door lock at $800
   • 2 mobiles at $180
   • 4 mobiles at $280
   • 2 mobiles at $2,800
   • 2 mobiles at $4,800
   • 4 mobiles at $350
   • 1 mobile hard disc at $730.80
   • Cash in notes of $800
   • Cash in coins of $500
     
3. The complainant discovered that his warehouse was intruded by thievessometimes after you and your associate had already escaped. The total value of all the properties stolen was $22,243.80. Only 2 mobiles and the hard disc were recovered by police during police investigation. In your record of interview, you admitted that you took $300 and had used it already.
   
4. The facts before this court it is not clear as to who from the two of you took most of the stolen properties.However, the truth remains and that is, the rest of the stolen properties were never recovered until today.
   
5. Your lawyer rightly pointed out the following factors which I accordingly considered them as your personal and mitigating features:
   
   • (i) You grew up in a family where both parents had divorced. In that he urged the Court to consider your unfortunate family circumstances that your mother had divorced your father and at the time of the offending, you no longer lived with your father but only by your step father who is also a former prisoner.
     
   • (ii) You committed the offence when you were a student at Aligegeo Secondary School. You are not a town dweller but spent most of your time at school. When you came over to Honiara you somehow involved in the commission of the offence.
     
   • (iii) You were not well supported by your parents in terms of your school fees. Only your mother on some occasions gave you pocket money whilst at school.
     
   • (iv) You were 17 years of age when you committed the offence and ought to be considered as a young person in terms of sentencing.
     
   • (v) You were a first time offender and had pleaded guilty to this offence. This was indicative of your honesty and remorsefulness of your action.
     
   • (vi) You planned to continue with your education upon your release from prison. Your lawyer urged this Court to consider your prospect of doing further education in light of any sentence to be imposed on you.
     
6. On the other hand, there are obvious aggravating features present in your offending:
   
   • (i) You carefully planned to carry out this offence. The manner in which you entered inside that building clearly reflected the level of planning involved. First, you selected that building and had to wait until during odd hours before you and Aloysius Wale Bara started to carry out the break and enter crime. You then climbed the mango tree in order to reach the roof. With the help of your co-accused, you cut a hole through the copper of the roof with the tin snip sky blue cutter in order to access the interior of the roof of that building. Thereafter, you successfully entered inside that building. In my view, this is a sophisticated and carefully planned offending. Only those who put their minds into how to access that warehouse building from the roof would come up with this type of plan like in your case.
     
   • (ii) The offence involved cutting of the exterior copper of the building to create a hole. The act of creating a large hole to ensure you entered through the cooper involves damaging of the building parts. In this instance, the owner of the building has to incur costs to have it repaired.
     
   • (iii) There were significant number of valuable items and money totalled up to $22, 243.80 were stolen from the warehouse. The principle in terms of sentencing is simple. The more value the goods stolen, the greater the punishment to be imposed.
     
   • (iv) Your act of breaking into other people’s property for the sake of stealing shows an act of gross disrespect to other people’s property especially towards the business households or community in our capital, Honiara. It does not only put the owner of the property at a financial disadvantaged position for the loss of property but it raises concerns to investors whether it is safe to run business in our country taking into account the increase of theft related incidents to shops committed by none other but our own Solomon Islanders.
     
   • (v) Your act of removing the items and cash in the value of $22, 243.80 caused financial loss to the business owner who operated the business in that warehouse.
     
7. The sentence that I will impose on you must able to teach you and any likeminded offender a lesson to change your ways so that when you release from prison you will become a law abiding person and ultimately, be a useful member of your family, community and the country as a whole. For the period of 9 months since you remanded in custody, I believe that you must have learnt what prison life is about. Further, you might also realise that you will enjoy life in full outside the four corners of the prison walls. In your present case, whether your decision to commit the offence was due to frustration over your family situation, or might be related to your grievance at school, or peer pressure or due to the need for quick money, you ought to know that it is unlawful to break into other people’s building and steal. You have all the opportunity to stay away from committing this crime at the first place because it may lead you to end up in prison. You are a student and should not to act like criminals. Further, you should know that by involving in this crime, it willjeopardise your education which is your future. You decide not to do the right thing but allow yourself to involve in that criminal activity which resulted in your arrest, conviction and the premature ending of your Form Five secondary education.
   
8. The attitude of breaking into other people’sbuilding for the sake of stealing in my view only show people who are lazy and only benefit through unlawful means from other people’s efforts and sweat. Further, it has no place in our modern Solomon Islands societies either in the rural or urban area. Time and time again, this type of offending only brings bad image to our country because of only few individuals like in your case with no care attitude. The Court as the institution which the people of this country put their faith and trust on must stand up right against such offending and must deter accordingly those who indulge in this type of serious offending. This principle was advocated in the famous case of R v Ball^[1]where 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]

9. On the other hand, the Court must also ensure that you are not only punishedfor the crime you committed but enable you to rehabilitate and become a useful member of your family, community and the country as a whole.
   
10. In terms of sentence, I am urged to consider whether I can sentence you as a juvenile or an adult person. I noted that you were already 17 years of age at the time of the offending. When you were convicted, you already 18 years of age. In my view, the Juvenile Offenders Act is not applicable to your case since that Act only applies to offenders who are under 18 years of age. Therefore, for this case, I will sentence you as an adult person. However, I will consider your youth in terms of the sentence to be imposed on you.
    
11. In considering your sentence and its effect on your youthfulness, I am also mindful of the sentiment expressed by Muria ACJ in the case of Paroke and Kupper v R^[3] where he stated:
    

“I do not accept the suggestion that because an offender is young and a first offender, he should not be sent to prison. In cases of serious crime and housebreaking is such as crime, the court must reflect the seriousness of the crime in the sentence they pass upon a young offender.”^[4]

12. In this case, the Court also referred to the case of R -v- MaritinoSuilamo, Tome Akwasu'u and Molousafi^[5] where in that case, the plea for youth is no longer satisfactory answer to serious crimes.
    
13. I have the opportunity to look through past cases for guilty pleas for this offence. A closer look at the past cases^[6] shows that the range of the sentences imposed by the Courts for this offence ranged from suspended sentence to 3 years imprisonment. For cases involving juveniles, the trend of the sentence seemed to revolve around the middle of the range and even further down depending on the circumstances of the offending.
    
14. In terms of sentencing, the cardinal principle is simple, that is, each case has to be decided on its own unique set of facts. Past cases can only be used as a guide and sometimes can be of little value. In Sahu v Regina^[7], the Court recognised this approach and stated:
    

“It is well accepted that the technique of comparing sentences imposed in different cases is of limited assistance and provides only imperfect guidance as to the appropriate sentence in any given case.”^[8]

15. After considering your participation in the commission of crime, it is my view that your level of culpability is at the middle range of the seriousness of this offence. This is because you planned to carry out this offending, you committed the offence with the support of another, you had damaged the exterior part of the roof in order to gain entry inside the building and you involved in the theft of valuable properties including cash which except for the 2 mobile phones and mobile hard disc, the other properties and cash were never recovered until today. Hence, the starting point for your sentence will be 2 years imprisonment.^[9]
    
16. Considering the seriousness of this offence, your level of culpability and balancing them with the mitigating and personal circumstances, the appropriate sentence in my view is 2 years 4 months imprisonment. However, a matter that strikes the heart of this Court is your plea to continue with your education as soon as you release from prison. The reason for that is obvious because having grown up in a troubledfamily; you only see education as your future destiny.
    
17. This is an urging call and shows that you have planned your future despite you are in custody. It also shows you have realised that life in prison is not good and perhaps only through education will give you satisfaction in terms of your future life. I utterly consider this as a significant mitigating factor which warrants the Court’s leniency to pass a sentence that will not unnecessarily prolong you to fulfil your dream in education while you are still young. Therefore, I order that the head sentence will be reduced by 50%to reflect this aspect of your mitigation, youthfulness, a first time offender and the delay to have this matter finalised in Court.
    
18. The resulting sentence therefore is that you will serve14 months in prison. Time spent in custody is to be taken into account.
    
19. Accused has right to appeal this sentence within 14 days as of the date of this sentence.
    

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

(A) Impose 14 months imprisonment

(B) Time spent in custody is to be taken into account

....................................................................................
THE COURT

Augustine Aulanga (Mr)

(Principal Magistrate)

---

^[1](1951) 35 Cr. App. R. 164
^[2] At page 165
^[3] High Court Unreported Criminal Case No. 21 of 1999
^[4] At page 2 of the judgement
^[5] High Court Unreported Criminal Case No. 3 of 1992
^[6] See case of Pitamana v R [2005] SBHC 45, R v Anika [2008] SBHC, Maelasi v R [2000] SBHC 82, R v Moses Bia CMC CRC No. 1162/2014, R v Peter Kakai CMC CRC No. 1588/2015, R v Walter Bona and Augustine Ratea JuniorCMC CRC No. 05/2015 and R v Happy Mae CMC CRC No. 2/2016
^[7][2012] SBHC 122
^[8] Paragraph 6 of the judgement
^[9] Stanley Bade v R[1988-89] SILR 121