Regina v Junior [2016] SBMC 23; Criminal Case 1277 of 2015 (13 September 2016)

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

Criminal Case No: 1277 of 2015

Regina
-V-
Samuel Mane Junior

Prosecution: Mr. M. Hauirae of the ODPP

Defence: Mr. D. Kwalai of PSO
Plea Date: July 21, 2016
Sentencing Hearing: September 8, 2016
Sentence Delivered: September 13, 2016

Sentence

1. This matter is for me to sentence the defendant, Samuel Mane Junior for various offences he committed in 2013 and 2015. I will deal with them in the sequence of the offending.
   

First Incident

2. In the evening of 31^st of December 2013, a birthday party was organised by the complainant, Patterson Busu, for his niece at his family home at Haleta village, Central Islands Province. Whilst he and his family members were gathering at his area, the defendant, Samuel Mane Junior, with another male person called Paul Midi appeared. Both of them were observed to be very drunk. They were holding their drinks while Samuel Mane Junior was armed with a kitchen knife.
   
3. They entered the birthday venue and Samuel shouted saying “fuckem mummy and sister blong yufala everyone.” After he uttered these swearing words, he lashed his right hand at a lighting bulb and smashed it into pieces. Next, he moved to another bulb and kicked it with his left leg and broke it as well. He then moved to another bulb and smashed it with his right hand. Still not satisfied with those bulbs, he moved over to a table, lifted it up and threw it to the ground.
   
4. All these were done in the presence of Paterson Busu and his family members.
   
5. He was reported to police and was charged with one count of these offences:
   
   1. going armed in public contrary to section 83 of the Penal Code;
   2. using abusive words contrary to section 178(n) of the Penal Code;
   100. malicious damage contrary to section 326(1) of the Penal Code; and
   4. drunk and disorderly contrary to section 175(d) of the Penal Code.
      
6. On arraignment, he pleaded guilty to all the charges. By his guilty plea, he has accepted his unlawful conducts as alleged by the prosecution.
   
7. The uncontested facts of this incident revealed the actions displayed by the defendant were aggravated in the following manner:
   

7.1 Firstly, he was very disrespectful towards Patterson Busu and his family members who gathered at his area for the birthday. This was evidenced by the utterance of the swearing words which was not only offensive but totally unacceptable and against the cultural norms and Christian principles of that community. Also, his actions of damaging the lighting bulbs and throwing of the table in the presence of those people who gathered for the birthday party revealed his arrogance and no care attitude at its peak.

7.2 Secondly, he caused nuisance and disturbance during that social gathering or at a birthday party in other words. That occasion was attended by elderly people, mothers and children and ought to be respected by the defendant or even by any reasonable person. Yet, he intentionally meant to disturb that occasion by swearing at them and then damaged those bulbs which they used and depended on to provide lighting for that occasion.

7.3 Thirdly, he was drunk, aggressive and in possession of a kitchen knife when he caused the disturbance. When a drunken and matured man like the defendant armed with a kitchen knife and aggressively behaved among those who present for that birthday no doubt caused fear and even trauma especially to the children and mothers who gathered at that occasion.

7.4 Finally, he deprived the owner from the use and benefit of those three lighting bulbs. I take judicial notice that those bulbs were not manufactured in the village but can only be purchased from the shops in town. Hence, he caused unnecessary financial loss to the owner of those properties having to find money again to purchase new bulbs to replace the broken ones caused mainly by the action of the defendant.

8. It should be clearly understood by the defendant that the attitude he displayed is not acceptable by any community in Solomon Islands. Those who witnessed what he did must have felt and experienced such stupidity that is why this matter was reported to the police and eventually ended up before this Court.
   
9. It is unclear from the materials the reason why he committed these offences at that evening. Even if he has a reason to do so at that time, he should have resolved it in an appropriate and non-violent manner as opposed to what he did at that time. However, if what he did were merely to show his arrogance and to disturb the party, then the message from the court will be simple and straight forward. That is, this kind of behaviour and attitude will not be allowed to thrive in our communities but must be discouraged accordingly with a deterrent sentence.
   
10. For purposes of his mitigation, I take into account his guilty pleas to these charges which undoubtedly saved the court’s time and resources and also the witnesses from the trauma of having to come and testify in court. He is a married person with one child. He is a first time offender and very remorseful for his actions. By implication, he now realises his actions were inappropriate and will take steps to see they are not repeated in future. His remorse is also indicative that he has good prospect of changing his character and attitude and ultimately, being a law abiding person upon his release. I have also noted that these offences were committed since 2013. Clearly, there is a delay occasioned to have his matters finalised. This issue of delay must be tilted to his favour.
    
11. It is well settled that each case has to be considered on its own set of factual matrix in light of its aggravating and mitigating factors. The cases decided by the courts in the past can only be used as a guide. However, the final sentence to a case is one that rests solely at the discretion of the court taking into account the aggravating and mitigation factors.
    
12. I have noted that these offences are not felony. However, this does not mean the court should overlook the need for deterrence. In light of the aggravating and mitigating factors, I impose the following sentences as follows:
    
    1. going armed in public contrary to section 83 of the Penal Code - 4 months imprisonment,
    2. using abusive words contrary to section 178(n) of the Penal Code - 5 months imprisonment,
    3. malicious damage contrary to section 326(1) of the Penal Code – 5 months imprisonment, and
    4. drunk and disorderly contrary to section 175(d) of the Penal Code – 1 month imprisonment.
       
13. All sentences are to be served concurrently since all of them occurred at the same time and place.
    

Second Incident

14. His other offending occurred in the night of 4^th of October 2015 when he and others namely; Piru and Benjamin went to the house of Ben Gaoni at Goni settlement in the Central Islands Province. When they entered his area, they started calling and shouting in an aggressive manner for Gaoni who at that time was away at another village. These made Gaoni’s wife scared and escaped out of the house to her cousin’s house with her children.
    
15. Samuel Mane without further warning, collected dry coconut leaves from nearby, lit them with fire and set it to the walling of the house of Ganoni. As a result, the house was burnt and destroyed completely. The value of the house was $31, 639 at the time it was destroyed.
    
16. The house that was burnt down was the home and shelter for Ben Gaoni and his family. When he destroyed it, he brought hardship and pain to Ben Gaoni. He and his family were devastated and had to be made homeless by the defendant’s action. The offence was also deliberate and intentional and cannot be said to happen by a spur of a moment reaction. He and the others had to walk to the village of the complainant in the night and eventually set fire to his house. Also, the burning of the house was carried out by the defendant in the company of others. The value of the house was $31, 639 and this in my view is a valuable house and one that he had spent a lot of money to build it.
    
17. The presence of these aggravating factors showed that it is a very serious form of arson and one that requires a condign punishment.
    
18. A number of cases have been referred to me by the prosecution and defence suggesting 3 years as the starting point for this case. Those cases were quoted from the sentence delivered by Foukona J, in R v Alick Kaieti.^[1] Unfortunately, I am not assisted whether those sentences were for guilty or not guilty matters. It is important that counsels only provide and assist the Court with sentences for guilty pleas when a case is disposed by way of guilty plea and vice versa.
    
19. For purposes of convenience, I have outlined in a tabular form some of the sentences imposed by our Courts^[2] for guilty plea matters for the charge of arson. The sentences ranged from 2 ½ - 3 ½ years imprisonment.
    

No.	Case	Sentence	Summary of Facts
1.	R –v- Mino [1997] SBHC 40	3 ½ years imprisonment imposed by Palmer CJ	Offender pleaded guilty. Used 6 cans of four liter petrol to burn down building used by logging company as office. Money and valuable properties destroyed. Occurred as resisted logging operations in the area.
2.	R v Andrew Aole and Davidson Buare (CMC) Jan 2004	Aole - 3 ½ year’s imprisonment. Buare - 3 years imprisonment	Guilty plea. Burnt down NBSI agency building to destroy documents-subject of audit investigation.
3.	Do’oro v R [2005] SBHC 130	Appellant resentenced to 3 years after appeal.	Appeal following guilty plea. Burning down of NBSI building in Tulagi.
4	Nathan Oli & Frency Manegaua v R [2008] SBHC 43; HCSI-CRAC 124 of 2008	Appellants served 2 ½ years concurrent sentence	Appeal against sentence of 7 years imposed by Magistrates Court following guilty pleas. The offending involved torching of six dwelling houses and a kindergarten classroom.

20. Following on with the current pattern of the sentences imposed by the High Court for this offence and the need to be consistent with those sentences and translating that approach to the facts of this case, I agree that the starting point for this offence should be 3 years imprisonment.
    
21. For purposes of his sentence, I adopt the same mitigating and personal factors referred to earlier for his other offending.
    
22. Hence, the appropriate sentence in my view is 3 years imprisonment. This sentence is reached after careful consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors of this case and the need for specific and general deterrence of this type of offending.
    
23. I have noted this offence is different from the other offences he committed in 2013. Hence, a consecutive sentence is expected to be the correct approach to determine his overall term of the sentence to be imposed. Therefore, I order that his 5 months imprisonment term for his former offences is added to the 3 years imprisonment term making it a total of 3 years and 5 months head sentence.
    
24. However, I order that 5 months is reduced from this head sentence to reflect the delay and his other mitigating and personal factors.
    
25. The resulting sentence is that the offender, Samuel Mane Junior, will serve 3 years imprisonment. Period spent in custody is to be taken into account.
    
26. 14 days right of appeal apply.
    

ORDERS OF THE COURT

(A) Impose 3 years imprisonment.

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

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

Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate

---

[1] [2007] SBHC 93; HCSI-CRC 358 of 2006 (27 July 2007)

^[2] The High Court and the Magistrates Court