PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Magistrates Court of Solomon Islands
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Magistrates Court of Solomon Islands >> 2016 >> [2016] SBMC 15

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Regina v Onumumu [2016] SBMC 15; Criminal Case 181 of 2016 (13 June 2016)

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


Criminal Case No. 181 of 2016


REGINA


v


WALTER ONUMUMU
1ST DEFENDANT


MARTIN MEPENI
2ND DEFENDANT


JEFFREY MIVEABU
3RD DEFENDANT


MICHAEL LANO
4TH DEFENDANT


Prosecution: Mr. I. Tebakota of the Police Prosecutions
Defence: All self-represented
Plea date: March 29, 2016
Sentence submissions: May 24, 2016
Sentence: June 13, 2016


SENTENCE


  1. The four defendants pleaded guilty to one count of office break in, contrary to section 300(a) of the Penal Code. It carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
  2. The brief facts of this case revealed that between 19th of March 2016 and 22nd of March 2016, the defendants entered the premises of a GPPOL construction office by cutting the fence. When inside the fence, they proceededstraight to the building and entered inside by using a pinch bar to lever up the door. They went through that door and further entered inside the building by unlocking other doors. They then removed the following items:
  3. The total value of the items was $37,913. The value of these properties was significant.
  4. During police investigation, only the following items were recovered:
  5. These items were recoveredwhen police chased one of the defendants, Walter Onumumu, who escaped with a bag containing those items but dropped it when police almost reached him. This was during a raid carried out by police at his residence at Panatina, East Honiara.
  6. Upon recovery of those items, other items worth $7, 913 were still missing and yet to be recovered.
  7. On 28th of March 2016, the defendants voluntarily surrendered themselves to Henderson Police. They made unequivocal admissions for their involvements in the commission of the offence. When questioned by police, they admitted that after they had removed those items from the said building, they escaped in a getaway vehicle to WalterOnumumu’sresidence at Panatina.
  8. In mitigation, I take into account the following personal and mitigating features in their favour:
  9. When asked by the court in relation to their future plans upon their release from prison, they indicated that they will concentrate on farming and other useful activities to help their families who at present at their various homes in Temotu Province. If that is exactly their future outlook then that shows they havegood prospects of rehabilitation to becoming useful persons to their respective families and communities.
  10. On the other hand, the aggravating features from their participation in the offending are:
  11. I have noted that this offence is becoming prevalent in our country. Business people, companies, private and government offices often become the victims of this offending. Even the Magistrates court building was subjected to this particular offending in the past.[1]Due to laziness, the need for quick money and no care attitude, a lot of people simply indulged themselves in the commission of this offence. This present case, a company again became a victim.
  12. In the case of R v Jeremy Zoni[2], I made these remarks which I think is equally important to reiterate it here:

“The attitude of breaking into other people’s building 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 areas. 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”[3]


  1. The above remarks showthe court’s position in its disapproval of this type of offending which the defendants were convicted of before this court.
  2. In this present case, the defendants knew very well that the properties they stole were not their properties. They knew that they were embarking on a mission to commit a crime which would risk them to imprisonment if found by police. They knew that obvious consequence, yet they did not bother to stop and think whether this would do them any good or their other family members since they were married persons. All these positive and simple common sense thoughts just vanished in air by their selfish and stupidity perhaps for the need to get quick money from the sale of those items or for other purposes only known to them.
  3. To help stamp out this kind of unlawful activities and to ensure rule of law prevails in our society where other people properties are respected and cannot be unlawfully taken at the whims of another person, the court as the institution which the people of this country have faith and trust must act in the public interest and be vigilant by imposing strong deterrent messages against such offenders. Otherwise, our societies will become a hub for such offending.
  4. In terms of consideration for sentence, I am mindful of the duty to consider and impose a sentence that is fair and just in the circumstance of this case. Further, I am also obliged to follow the position taken by the High Court in determining what ought to be the appropriate starting point for this offending.
  5. The offence of office break in or any offence under section 300 of the Penal Codeis a serious offence. In the case of Hola, Tome andLai v R referred to in R v Anika,[4]Ward CJ (as he was then) echoed:

"There can be no doubt that housebreaking is a serious offence. This is reflective of the fact that the law puts the maximum punishment for such an offence at 14 years imprisonment. As such it cannot be said that the custodial is wrong in principle in house breaking cases".

  1. In Pitamana v R[5], Palmer CJ adopted the guideline set out in Stanley Bade v R[6]for burglary offences to resentence the appellant in relation to housebreaking offences as follows:

"For a normal burglary case, the only appropriate penalty must be an immediate custodial sentence. Where the burglary is not aggravated in any way, the starting point for an adult first offender should be two years imprisonment. From that point, this court should consider any aggravating factors such as committing the offence with the support of others, theft of personal items that can be of little or no value to the thief, general ransacking of the house, wanton damage, pre-planning and the degree of breaking necessary to gain entry. If such matters were present they should add to the penalty.”[7]


  1. I am bound to follow this authoritative guideline in my sentence.
  2. In the present case, there was element of preplanningsince they were armed with a pinch bar to target that office, arranged a gateway vehicle and successfully used broke in that office. Also, the offence was also committed with the support of another and the value of the goods stolen and yet to be recovered was $7, 913. This is quite significant amount of money been lost from this offending. All these factors when put together call for acustodial sentence above the 2 years minimum. It is not a normal break in offence but an aggravated one.
  3. The tariff of sentence imposed by this court for adult offenders for offences under section 300 of the Penal Code ranged from 2 years upwards.[8] However, each case has to be decided on its own set of facts.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.[9]
  4. I have considered this offence andhow it was committed. Clearly, it is a serious offence and one that cannot be treated or taken lightly. I have also carefully considered the individual circumstances of the defendants and noted that they were married persons. Hence, their family members will be affected by their incarcerations. This is unfortunate but they should have thought about these likely consequences first before committing such offences.
  5. After considering all the mitigating and personal features, the aggravating features and weighed them against the objective seriousness of this offence, the appropriate head sentence for each of the defendants is 3 years imprisonment.
  6. However, to reflect the utilitarian value of their guilty pleasas required in R v Qoloni,[10]I order that their respective sentences will be reduced as follows:
  7. Each defendant has a right to appeal his sentence within 14 days as of today to the High Court.

ORDERS OF THE COURT


(A) Impose the following sentences on the defendants as follows:

(B) Times spent in custody are to be taken into account.

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

Augustine Aulanga - PM


[1]Like in a Central Magistrates Court criminal case of the accused named Pitamama
[2] CMC Criminal Case No: 655 OF 2015
[3] At paragraph 8 of the sentence
[4] [2008] SBHC 91; HCSI-Criminal Review Case 762 of 2008
[5] [2005] SBHC 45; HCSI-CRC 3 of 2005
[6] [1988-89] SILR 121
[7] Also referred to Pitamama v R [2005] SBHC 45 at page 4
[8] See:R v Gwaliasi and Ors CMC CRC No. 2 of 2016 and R v Raymond Marriam Wells CMC CRC No. 1213 of 2015
[9]Sahu v R[2012] SBHC 122
[10] HCSI-CRC 76 of 2005

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBMC/2016/15.html