Regina v Suba [2016] SBMC 21; Criminal Case 1154 of 2015 (4 August 2016)

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

Criminal Case No: 1154 of 2015

Regina
-V-
Jonis Suba

Prosecution: Ms. M. Suifa’asia of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Defence: Mr. L. Kwana of HONIARA ATTORNEY’S – AT- LAW
Plea Date: July 21, 2016
Sentencing Submissions: July 28, 2016
Sentence: August 4, 2016

SENTENCE

[1]. This is the sentence for Jonis Suba who pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery, contrary to section 293(1) (a) of the Penal Code. This is a very serious offence and one that its maximum penalty is the same as other grave crimes. That is, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. My task now is to sentence him after thorough consideration of the mitigating, personal and aggravating features including the need for deterrence.

[2]. The armed robbery was committed in the early hours of 1^st of August 2015 when he teamed up with other group of men and entered into the premises of Winlex Company at Lunga area in Honiara. At that time, they were armed with bush knifes and covered their faces with masks. They climbed over the fence and entered into the said Winlex’s compound. As anticipated, they made their way straight into the Company’s building and stole $130,336.70 cash, a 070 chainsaw and other personal properties. Part of the stolen monies includes payroll monies and personal monies of the employees of that Company.

[3]. Suba only took $800 and a laptop from the total amount of cash and the properties stolen that night. In relation to the laptop, he admitted that he had already sold it. Despite no mention as to who received the proceeds of the sale of that laptop, the inference is very clear and can be easily drawn. That is, he was the one who benefited from that sale since the decision to sell was his personal decision.

[4]. It is well settled that the offender’s plea of guilty has largely avoided the usual difficulty faced by the prosecution and the Court in terms of saving costs and resources for trial. It does also show his agreement and willingness to face whatever form of penalty he will receive at the end of the day. I am urged to consider and take into account these personal and mitigating factors on his behalf :

4. 1 The defendant is a married person with 3 children aged 14, 12 and 10 years respectively. These three children currently attended primary education here in Honiara. His wife is unemployed and depends on him for financial support from his job as a building constructor. Further, his parents are now old and depended on him for support. At this stage, his family members are struggled and were affected as a result of his incarceration.

4.2 He was very cooperative with police during the police investigation and ultimately resulted in his own admission of the offence.

4.3 He was very remorseful for his involvement in the offending. Through his lawyer, he apologised not only to this court but to his church, community and the State. This is an indication that he will take steps not to see it repeated in future.

4.4 At the time of the offending, he was under the influence of liquor and therefore, was not in his right mind to make a proper decision when he participated with others to commit this offence.

4.5 He has no criminal history and an active member of his community prior to his arrest.

[5]. Whilst I consider and take these submissions into account, what concerns me most and perhaps cannot be overlooked is the fact that the defendant being a mature and married person with huge family responsibility had made a conscious and deliberate decision to join the group of men to embark on a mission to commit a serious crime. Despite his state of intoxication, that cannot be said to be the sole reason for committing the crime. From the facts of the case, it is clear that he was able to coordinate himself by climbing the fence of the area, able to make a decision to join the group and participated in a manner that resembled a normal person. Hence, whether or not to put much weight on this issue of intoxication is a matter rests entirely at the discretion of the Court, save to say, at least he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offending.

[6]. There are number of aggravating features that are present in this case. First, the defendant robbed the Winlex Company with the company of other persons. When an offence is committed by a group of persons acting together or a gang robbery in other words, amounts to an aggravating feature. Second, there was element of planning involved. The defendant and his associates were armed with bush knives and went to the area of the company that night. They even wore masks when they entered the building. Being masked and armed with bush knives, and venture into the night clearly reflected the offending was one that cannot be said to happen by mistake but clearly orchestrated and well planned. Third, the offending occurred in the night. It is trite law that when an offence like this is committed in the night amounts to an aggravating feature. The reason is simple because it puts the owner or occupier of the property in a vulnerable position to defend him/her in person and the property once confronted by a group of armed robbers. Finally, the defendant took $800 and a laptop computer. No doubt he had deprived and caused financial loss to the Winlex Company from the right to benefit from the money and the laptop that were stolen that night. That amount of money and item were never received until today.

[7]. In cases involving robbery of properties belonging to other persons, the Courts in the past have echoed the need to be vigilant in its messages to discourage such offending. In the present case, the defendant climbed the fence to gain entry into the Company’s compound whilst masked and armed with a bush knife. This is a sophisticated and advance form of robbery carried out in a manner to conceal the offender’s identity. It has the effect of causing fear to the public and one that normally frustrates or may complicate police investigations. Hence, it cannot be easily tolerated by this Court.

[8]. The range of the sentence for this offence for adult offenders is expected to be above the juvenile offenders. For juvenile offenders^[1], the sentence recently imposed by this court for guilty plea matters is 2 years imprisonment. This is to reflect the increase trend of this offending in our country. Therefore, the sentence expected for adult offenders should be higher than this. This increase of sentence shows the court’s revulsion and its adjustment to the prevalence of this offence and the need to discourage it in our societies.

[9]. Few case authorities had been referred to me by counsels for purposes of considering the appropriate penalty for the defendant.

[10]. However, it is also 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. In other words, each case has to be decided on each own individual factual matrix and aggravating and mitigating factors.

[11]. The offence of armed robbery committed by the defendant is a very serious offence as reflected by its maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is a harshest penalty provided by our law - the same penalty provided for a conviction for murder or rape for example.

[12]. In light of the prevalence of this offence and considering the length of sentence imposed by the Court in the past,^[2] it raises a question of whether past sentences are relevant to the maximum penalty and contemporaneity. Otherwise, it will run the risk of erosion in the public confidence of our criminal justice system.

[13]. I am mindful of the fact that he has a huge family responsibility. No doubt his children and his parents will be affected by his incarceration. This is unfortunate but he should have thought about this likely consequence first before committing the offence.

[14]. Considering the seriousness of this offence, his level of culpability, the aggravating features of this case and balancing them with the mitigating and personal circumstances, the appropriate sentence in my view is 3 years imprisonment.

[15]. Defendant has a right of appeal within 14 days as of today.

ORDERS OF THE COURT

(A) Impose 3 years imprisonment.

(B) Period spend in custody is to be deducted from this sentence.

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

Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate

---

^[1] See case of R v Junior Kaluae CMC-CRC NO: 1492 OF 2015
^[2] For example see R v Aubasi [2013] SBHC 1; HCSI-CRC 76 of 2010