Regina v Ilala [2017] SBMC 18; CMC-CRC 325 of 2015 (14 June 2017)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT )
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS )

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 325 of 2015

REGINA
-v-
JONATHAN ILALA

Prosecution: Mr. L. Adifaka of Police Prosecutions Office
Defence: Mr. D. Kwalai of Public Solicitors Office
Hearing date: June 8^th, 2017
Sentence: June 14^th, 2017

SENTENCE

1. Jonathan Ilala (“accused”) pleaded guilty to the following charges:
   
   • ◊ Simple larceny, contrary to section 261(1) of the Penal Code;
   • ◊ Drunk and incapable, contrary to section 179 of the Penal Code; and
   • ◊ Common assault, contrary to section 244 of the Penal Code.
     
2. He was remanded in custody on 11^th February 2017 for an outstanding warrant of arrest besides the fresh charges brought in by police.
   
3. For the simple larceny, he was a co-accused to Jerry Laumae. That incident involved stealing of a mobile phone of Robert Chow on 3^rd December 2013 at the Central Market area. That phone was taken by Laumae after the incident. Laumae was sentenced for 18 months by Principal Magistrate Jim Seuika on 23^rd February 2015.
   
4. On 28^th March 2015, he was found drunk and lying under a Christmas tree in front of a shop few yards away from the Central Magistrate’s Court vicinity.
   
5. On 19^th February 2016, he punched a person called Papa with his right hand closed fist in a shop called K - Boxing at Point Cruz area. No injury was sustained.
   
6. The facts of these offences produced by the prosecution revealed that the accused behavior is quite concerning. The theft and the assault charges was carried out on innocent victims minding their own business here in Honiara. It was unprovoked, disrespectful and were done in total disregard to their property and safety. The streets of Honiara or even else in the country will not be safe if these kinds of street offending goes viral and undeterred.
   
7. I give credit for his guilty pleas and for being remorseful in court. He has taken the bold step by making a promise not to return back to his troubled life. This indicates he now realizes the anguish of a prison life and will take step to see he won’t reoffend again in future. I think part of that realization is that; the older he grows, the more sensible he becomes.
   
8. For the simple larceny charge, although he had participated in that offending, the phone was taken away by Laumae and not him. Also, the evidence is silent as to whether they have jointly benefitted from this offending.
   
9. There is no medical evidence to show the severity of the harm or any injury suffered by the victim. The omission of this prevents the court to know with certainty whether or not the assault is a serious one. The facts relied on by the prosecution only showed a single punch on the victim with no further evidence to prove whether he suffered any harm or injury.
   
10. I take note that his co-accused was already sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. The principle of parity demands that since they were co-accused to the same offending, they should receive the same penalty unless there are justifiable reasons for imposing a lesser penalty to the other co-accused.
    
11. The facts of the simple larceny is unclear whether he was the one who physically removed the phone or whether he was merely aiding Laumae during the course of the theft as a lookout. This information was not provided in the summary of facts even though he was questioned by police and easily admitted his involvement. Therefore, to make any assumption without any evidentiary support that he should also receive the same sentence as Laumae is an improper course for the court to embark on.
    
12. Based on these reasons, it is my view, that his circumstance regarding his participation in the offending is quite different to Laumae. Therefore, his sentence must be different in a receding scale to what had been imposed on Laumae.
    
13. Also, I do not see any submission on whether the accused is not a first time offender. Therefore, this omission must tilt to his favor.
    
14. The sentence that I will impose must in a broader context focuses on rehabilitation. Despite the need for general and specific deterrence, in a long run, the public interest also demands rehabilitation of the accused so that upon his release from prison, he will become a useful member of the society and ultimately, the country as a whole.
    
15. I sentence him as follows:
    
    • ◊ Simple larceny, contrary to section 261(1) of the Penal Code – 12 months imprisonment.
      
    • ◊ Drunk and incapable, contrary to section 179 of the Penal Code – Enter conviction without penalty; and
      
    • ◊ Common assault, contrary to section 244 of the Penal Code – 4 months imprisonment.
      
16. The difference in the date and the victims of this matter warrant consecutive sentence. Hence, a total of 16 months is imposed. Having spent more than 4 months in custody, I order that the balance of his term be fully suspended for 2 years as of today on the condition that he will not commit any offence during the suspension period. A breach of this bond will result in the automatic reinstatement of the term suspended.
    
17. 14 days right of appeal applies.
    

...........................................................................
THE COURT
Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate