Regina v Ramosala [2016] SBMC 8; Criminal Case 1297 of 2015 & 27 of 2016 (5 April 2016)

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

Criminal Case No. 1297 OF 2015 & 27 OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF: SENTENCE FOLLOWING GUILTY PLEA

BETWEEN: REGINA

AND: HARRY TONNY RAMOSALA

Prosecution: Mr. A. Horesi of Police Prosecutions Office (PPO)
Defence: Accused in person
Plea Date: March 31, 2016
Sentence Delivered: April 5, 2016

SENTENCE

1. For purposes of convenience, I decide to deal with your two matters (CMC-CRC No. 1297 of 2015 and 27 of 2016) together for this sentence. For these two matters, you had entered guiltypleas for all offences. The reason why I prefer to consolidate them is becausethese three offending are serious of your continuing unlawful acts against the same victims.
   
2. Before I proceeded with the facts for these offences, at the outset, I have considered your guilty pleas; that you are about 36 years of age and single; you are unemployed and remorseful to your actions. You also promised to this Court that you will not do this same offending again in future. I have also noted that you have 21 previous convictions - 18 of them were common assault, 2 were intimidation and 1 using abusive words. All were committed between 2004-2008. I have taken them on board in my sentence.
   

Charge of Intimidation Contrary to Section 231 (1) of the Penal Code

3. On 27^th of September 2015, at about 7:00am, you approached your mother and father (Mr. Francis Harry Ramosala and Faye Ramosala) at your family residence at Zion area, East Honiara. At that time, you were drunk with alcohol. You then demanded $50.00 from you mother and started to threaten and intimidate both of them by saying “bae mi kakaimwanfala lo iutufala.”They tried to calm you but instead, you chased your mother out of the house. After your mother had escaped, you turned to your father, picked up an iron rode and shot him with it. Fortunately, he missed that iron and escaped. As a result of your aggressive behaviour, they called police and upon police arrival, you were arrested and charged.
   

Wilful and Unlawful Damage Contrary to Section 326(1) of the Penal Code

4. On another occasion on 22^nd of November 2015 at Zion area, you demanded your mother to give you $20.00. You were also drunk at that time. Having observed that you were drunk, your father approached you and gave you $20.00. Despite you already got the money, you picked up a piece of timber and hit one aluminium dish valued $84.00. As a result, it was broken. After you damaged your father’s property, you then threatened him that one day you will kill him in future.
   

Common Assault Contrary to Section 244 of the Penal Code

5. Finally on 1^stof March 2016 when you were very drunk, you approached your mother at your family’s residence at Zion and asked her for $15.00. Your mother replied to you that she didn’t have any money and walked out from you. You followed her and started to threaten to assault her. She was frightened and asked you not to hit her. Despite her request, you instead kicked her and as a result, she fell to the ground. She shouted to your father for assistance and that was the time you were taken out from her. Whilst you were there, you then said these threatening words to her “bae mi offum life bloiu.”
   
6. In all your offending, I find the following to be the aggravating features:
   
   • (i) You were drunk when you committed these offences;
     
   • (ii) On two occasions, you armed with a piece of iron rode and a timber when you committed the offences;
     
   • (iii) Youcontinued to utter threatening words to your parents even after you had committed the offences. This shows that you harboured a motive to assault your parents if an opportunity arises;
     
   • (iv) You caused loss of property to your father for damaging his aluminium dish;
     
   • (v) You continued act of threatening you own parents did not only cause them to live in fear but it an act of gross disrespect, inhumane and cruelty;

and

(vi) Those offending were unprovoked and uncalled for in the circumstances of the offending.

7. The facts of your case demonstrated an unfortunate case where you unnecessary brought hurt, fear and on one occasion,one of your parents has to physically suffer pain as a result of your action. In total, it is an act which can be characterised as cruel, cowardice and lack of respect for your parents who without them you would not have existed. I say this because, instead for you to show them love, care and support for raising you up for the past 35 years or take care of them since they are now in old age, you instead threatened, assaulted and promised to kill them in future. This is an outrageous type of behaviour ever expected from a son towards his parents. You should consider yourself lucky because you still have them around you and still call them mum and dad which many orphans are unlucky about and still longing for. They are your greatest gift from God and you in return should cherish every single moment you have with them while they still alive. Don’t hurt them but obey them every time, never let them down because of you. Make them happy with your achievements in life; these things can help you to take their blessings, which is the real asset of your life.The key to success is parent’s blessings. You will not achieve anything if you run with the world without their blessings. I want to reiterate these words to you in case you might not hear it but these are all common words we often heard when it comes to children obligation to obey parents.
   
8. Despite these offences are committed in a domestic context, the role of this Court is to ensurethat every victimis protected from perpetrators like in your case.
   
9. In terms of the sentencing, the Courts are given an unfettered discretion to impose whatever sentence that is fair in relation to the facts and circumstances of the offending.
   
10. Past cases can be used as a guide only. Each case has to be decided on its own unique set of facts. In Sahu v Regina^[1], the Court 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.”^[2]

11. However, to ensure uniformity and coherence, past cases can be of significant assistance. The usual tariffs of the sentences for intimidation imposed by the Courts ranged from bound over^[3], suspended sentence^[4] and 8 monthscustodial sentence^[5] or even 2 years depending on the circumstances of the offending, the mitigating and aggravating factors and the personal circumstances of the offender.
    
12. The tariffs of the sentences for wilful and unlawful damage imposed by the Courts ranged from bound over, and 10 months custodial sentence^[6] or even 2 years depending on the circumstances of the offending, the value of the property, the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the personal circumstances of the offender.
    
13. In relation to common assault charge, the tariffs imposed by the Courts also ranged from bound over, fine^[7], good behaviour, suspended sentence, 4 months imprisonment^[8] or even 1 year depending on the circumstances of the offending, the mitigating and aggravating factors and the personal circumstances of the offender.
    
14. In your case, I noted that you are not a first time offender having committed 18 common assault charges, 2 intimidation charges and 1 using abusive words charge in the past. Hence, I will sentence you not as a first time offender.
    
15. After considering the circumstance of the offending, the aggravating, mitigating and matters personal to your case, I imposed the following sentences on you:
    
    • (i) One count of intimidation contrary to section 231 (1) of the Penal Code – 1 year imprisonment.
      
    • (ii) Wilful and unlawful damage contrary to section 326(1) of the Penal Code – 2 months imprisonment.
      
    • (iii) Common assault contrary to section 244 of the Penal Code – 5 months imprisonment.
      
16. Since they all part of the continuing act against the same victims, I order that all sentences are to be served concurrently.Time spent in custody is to be taken into account.
    

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

(A) Impose total of 1 year concurrent imprisonment term for all offences.

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

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

Augustine Aulanga (Mr)

(Principal Magistrate)

---

^[1][2012] SBHC 122
^[2] Paragraph 6 of the judgement
^[3]R v Alfred Waki 2005 CMC
^[4]R v Paul Soso and Ors 2012 CMC
^[5]Kilatu v R [2005] SBHC 118; HCSI-CAC 206 of 2004 and also R v MoseKeho CMC-CRC No. 657 of 2015
^[6]R v PedeleniCMC-CRC No. 767 of 2013;R v Laposa EOIDMC- CRC No. 07/2012 and 49/2014; Kaieti v R [2007] SBHC 93
^[7]R v James Kote CMC-CRC No. 89 of 2015
^[8]R v PedeleniCMC-CRC No. 767 of 2013; R v Luke Lale CMC-CRC No. 687 of 2012 and R v Michael Taloikwai CMC-CRC No. 633 of 2009