Regina v Goro [2016] SBMC 24; Criminal Case 1277 of 2015 (15 September 2016)

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

Criminal Case No: 1277 of 2015

Regina
-V-
Mathew Piru Goro

Prosecution: Mr. M. Hauirae of the ODPP

Defence: Mr. C. Ruele of PSO
Plea Date: July 19 and August 4, 2016
Sentencing Hearing: September 8, 2016
Verbal Sentence Delivered: September 14, 2016
Written sentence: September 15, 2016

Sentence

1. The defendant, Mathew Piru Goro, entered guilty pleas to a number of offences he committed on three separate occasions in 2014 and 2015. All these incidents occurred inside these two village called Haleta and Goni in Central Islands Province.
   

First Incident

2. The first incident occurred on 8^th of March 2014 at Haleta village. On that occasion, Mathew Piru Goro went to the house of the complainants named Joel and Janet Sitima to ask compensation over an affair the complainant was believed to have caused with the defendant’s family. When he entered the area, he went to the kitchen of Joel and took a burning piece of wood and went under Joel’s house. When he reached underneath the house, he tried to ignite the bearer of the house with the burning wood by blowing it towards the bearer of the house. However, it failed to set fire to the house. After, he then demanded $500 from Janet. He was seen holding a short bush knife when he demanded Janet for the money. She was afraid of him so she escaped out of the house.
   
3. From that incident, he was charged with criminal trespass at night contrary to section 189(2) of the Penal Code, demanding money with menaces contrary to section 295 of the Penal Code, intimidation contrary to section 231(1) of the Penal Code and attempted arson contrary to section 320 of the Penal Code.
   

Second Incident

4. The second incident occurred on 21^st of June 2014 inside the same Haleta village in Central Islands Province. On that occasion, the defendant went to the same house of Joel. He reached Joel’s area after 12:00am and kicked the walling of the house and a result the wall was damaged. At that time, Joel and his family were still awake. After he kicked the house, he went and sat close to Joel and his family at the veranda of the house. Without warning, he got up and grabbed a bulb that was lighting at that time and ran away. Joel chased him but could not manage to catch him.
   
5. He was charged with criminal trespass at night contrary to section 189(2) of the Penal Code, malicious damage contrary to section 326(1) of the Penal Code and simple larceny contrary to section 261(1) of the Penal Code.
   

Third Incident

6. On 4^th of October 2015, the defendant went to Goni settlement and entered the area of Ben Gaoni. During that time, Gaoni was away at another village except for his wife, Maria Biku and children were inside the house. As the defendant entered the area, he started calling and shouting for Gaoni in an aggressive manner. He then ordered Maria to go and look for her husband. As she heard the shouting outside their house, she came out and told him that her husband was not in the house but had gone somewhere.
   
7. Despite he heard what Maria said to him, he instead started kicking the house and threw sticks and stones at the house. This made Maria very scared and hence, she escaped out of the house with her children. The defendant thereafter went closer to the house and pulled down the veranda and the walling.
   
8. As a result of this third incident, he was charged with criminal trespass at night contrary to section 189(2) of the Penal Code, intimidation contrary to section 231(1) of the Penal Code, threatening violence contrary to section 89(a) of the Penal Code and malicious damage contrary to section 326(1) of the Penal Code.
   
9. From the facts from these three incidents, the following are the aggravating factors:
   

9.1 His action of trying to light the fire to the bearer of Joel’s dwelling house must have been a frightening and terrifying experience to the family of Joel knowing that their house was about to be set on fire.

9.2 For the charges pertaining to attempted arson, intimidation and demanding money with menaces for the first incident, he committed those offences during the night. The fact that these offences took place during the night is considered aggravating because it puts the family of Joel in a vulnerable and risky position for the safety of their person and also for the protection of their properties.

9.3 He was in possession of the knife when he demanded money from Janet Sitima. The presence of the knife during the utterance of the demand has the potential to cause fear and duress to Janet Sitima to give in to the demand of the defendant for fear of being hurt.

9.4 The offences of criminal trespass at night, intimidation and malicious damage are repetitive. The defendant has not learnt from his past offending but seemed to indulge in carrying out these offences.

9.5 In relation to the simple larceny charge, he deprived Joel Sitima from the use and benefit to his bulb. This same aggravating factor also applies when he broke that bulb.

9.6 In relation to the malicious damage of the walling of Ben Gaoni’s house on 4/10/2015, his action no doubt puts Ben Gaoni in an unfortunate situation where he will have to expend manpower again for materials to replace that wall for his house.

9.7 He damaged the wall of that house in the company of others. It is well settled that when an offence is committed in the company of others amount to an aggravating factor. It has the potential to cause fear and trauma to the victim because of the presence of more than one person, who they all have the same unlawful or hostile intention to do the same or similar act against the victim.

10. This case joined the queue of some of the unfortunate cases that occurred in our rural areas where male in particular treated their own villagers or extended family members without any respect but just like mere objects. The present case is a classic example that exemplified how males in our societies take the law in their own hands to do whatever criminal activity willy-nilly without considering the consequences of their actions. This contributes to the general break down of customary rules and norms that ought to be adhered to in our rural communities and even to the extent of undermining the rule of law. This is a worrying trend if these actions were done in deliberate defiance or ignorance of the roles of village chiefs, elders and the police authorities who try to ensure villagers not to cause social disorder in their own communities but abide by village rules, norms and the laws of this country.
    
11. If the roles of the chiefs and elders have been undermined and the matter then comes before the Court for settlement then the Court’s primary duty is to discourage these types of attitude and offending so that that the present offender or even other like-minded offenders should refrain from committing these offences in future. With the steady increase and the prevalence of these offences in our country at present, it clearly revealed the ineffectiveness of the impact of the messages echoed by the Court in the past sentences to deter such offending. Hence, the direct result of such ineffectiveness is that current and likeminded offenders will have no hesitation in taking the risk of committing these offences and safety of individuals and properties will continue to be at risks. This is what exactly happened in the present case. Therefore, this calls for a forensic judgment whether or not the past and current sentencing practice is effective and relevant to deter such offending in light of this current reality.
    
12. A number of case laws have been submitted to me by counsel for the defendant to show the range of the sentences been imposed for these offences in the past. The intention is to drawn the Court’s attention to those sentences as helpful guidelines for imposition of appropriate sentences on the defendant for the charges he admitted.
    
13. It appears that there are diverging views on this point. Some judicial decisions suggested a coherent approach in sentencing whilst others advocated 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. Despite of those views, the general views normally accepted by the Court is that each cases has to be decided on its own set of facts taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors and the need for deterrence. Also, the sentence to be imposed is one that rests solely at the discretion of the sentencing Court.
    
14. In mitigation, I take into account his guilty pleas, being a married person with 3 children and is remorseful for his actions. He has no prior conviction and is unemployed. His nuclear family depends on him for support.
    
15. Whilst it is unfortunate to say that his family will be affected by his incarceration, he as a mature and family man should have thought about these consequences before committing such offences. If the defendant is prepared to carry out these offences then he must also prepare to face the consequence.
    
16. For the reasons outlined and taking into account the mitigating, personal and aggravating factors for these offences, I impose the following sentences in respect of the offences he had pleaded guilty to as follows:
    

(A) First Incident - 8/3/2014

(i) Criminal Trespass at Night, contrary to section 189(2) of the Penal Code – 3 months imprisonment;

(ii) Demanding Money with Menaces, contrary to section 295 of the Penal Code – 5 months imprisonment;

(iii) Intimidation, contrary to section 231(1) of the Penal Code – 7 months imprisonment; and

(iv) Attempted Arson contrary to section 320 of the Penal Code – 2 years imprisonment.

(B) Second Incident – 21/6/2014

(v) Criminal Trespass at Night, contrary to section 189(2) of the Penal Code – 3 months imprisonment;

(vi) Malicious Damage, contrary to section 326(1) of the Penal Code – 5 months imprisonment; and

(vii) Simple Larceny, contrary to section 261(1) of the Penal Code – 3 months imprisonment.

(C) Third Incident – 4/10/2015

(viii) Criminal Trespass at Night, contrary to section 189(2) of the Penal Code – 4 months imprisonment;

(ix) Intimidation, contrary to section 231(1) of the Penal Code – 7 months imprisonment;

(x) Threatening Violence, contrary to section 89(a) of the Penal Code – 4 months imprisonment and

(xi) Malicious Damage, contrary to section 326(1) of the Penal Code – 5 months imprisonment.

17. The sentences for the offences committed during each incident are to be concurrent to each other.
    
18. I order that the 2 years concurrent sentence for the first incident should be concurrent to the 5 months concurrent sentence for the second incident. This is because the offences were committed against the same victim despite on separate occasion.
    
19. This 2 years concurrent sentence will be consecutive to the 7 months concurrent sentence imposed for the third incident making it a total term of 2 years 7 months as the head sentence. However, I order that 5 months is reduced from this head sentence to reflect the delay to have this matter finalised and also to reflect his other mitigating and personal factors.
    
20. The resulting sentence for the offender, Mathew Piru Goro is 2 years & 2 months imprisonment.
    
21. 14 days right of appeal apply as of the date of this written sentence.
    

ORDERS OF THE COURT

(A) Impose 2 years and 2 months imprisonment.

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

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

Augustine Aulanga - PM