Regina v Pauline [2017] SBMC 2; Criminal Case 417 of 2017 (20 April 2017)

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

Criminal Case No. 417 of 2017

REGINA

-V-

LYNSA PAULINE

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2017
Date of Sentence: April 20, 2017

Mr. Mosese for prosecution
Accused in person

SENTENCE

Background

1. The accused, Lynsa Pauline, wish to proceed with arraignment without a lawyer and entered unequivocal guilty pleas to the following charges:
   
   • ◊ Using threatening, abusive or insulting words contrary to section 178 (n) of the Penal Code. It has a maximum penalty of a fine of $1000 or 1 month imprisonment; and
     
   • ◊ Assaulting police officer contrary to section 190 of the Police Act 2013. It has a maximum penalty of a fine of $50,000 or 5 years imprisonment.
     
2. The maximum penalties for these offences indicated the intention of the legislature to discourage any person from committing these offences. The duty of the court is to give effect to its intention when sentencing offenders committing these offences.
   

Facts of the case

3. The facts which the accused had agreed to revealed that on 18^th April 2017 at about 1:14am, on duty police officers carried out an arrest on a suspect, Jerick Simoa, near the SIBC compound area. The accused who was also present at that time shouted to one of the Police officers by the name of Philemon Taneko saying “no arrestim man ya.”
   
4. Whilst the suspect was arrested and placed in the police vehicle, the accused disregarded the police officers; went to the police vehicle and deliberately pulled out the suspect intending to take him out from being apprehended by the police officers. Realising she had obstructed the police officers, she was advised by those police officers that the suspect was already under their custody and that she should go back home and have her rest. Having heard that, she turned to a police officer by the name of Philemon Taneko and hit him on his chest. She did that when he was performing his duty during the arrest.
   
5. She followed the police officers to the Central Police Station and whilst at the said Police Station, she came to the charge office and started to accuse the police officers again.
   
6. It was during the course of accusing them that she uttered the following words to them “yu fuck shit, bulshit man, yu ass yia man. You fala think se yufala talem stret samthing ya.” She said those words after the police officers tried to explain to her why they were arresting the suspect. She was observed to be drunk when she said those words.
   
7. From these facts, I have considered these two as the aggravating factors:
   
   • ◊ First, she was drunk when she committed these offences. Being drunk when committed the offences aggravates the offending because it triggered the accused to behave and act uncontrollably and intimidating even in the presence of the police officers.
     
   • ◊ Second, when she hit the police officer on his chest and uttered the swearing words at the police officers at the Central Police Station, she totally disrespected them during the course of carrying out their lawful duties. Her behaviour was totally outrageous and had little, if not, no respect at all to the police officers.
     
8. In terms of her mitigation, I treat her as a first time offender and the fact that she had pleaded guilty to both offences. I also take into account she had apologised and was sorry for what she did to the police. She explained that she behaved inappropriately because she was drunk with SB that night. I also take into account her explanations and that the reason why she behaved in that way and that occurred only since she was under the influence of alcohol. Had it not, she would not act differently.
   
9. I give full credit to all her mitigating and personal factors.
   

Matters of concern

10. As far as her culpability is concerned, the most disturbing factor is her outrageous and disrespectful behavior she displayed to police officers that night. She knew very well that police was carrying out an arrest on a suspect but yet she wanted to obstruct or prevent them from effecting the arrest. She even advanced to the police vehicle and physically pulled out Jerick Simoa to show her disagreement willful obstruction to police when carrying out their duties. Not only that, she even assaulted one of them and swore at them using offensive words whilst at the Central Police Station.
    
11. The accused ought to know that police officers are State administrators of law and order in our country. They are tasked with important duties in the interest of public. Some of them are preservation of peace, protecting lives and property, maintaining security and safety of individuals in our communities and arresting of offenders believe to commit crime. The importance of their roles and duties is not only recognized by the legislation but also the court.
    
12. In the High Court case of Fafunua v Regina^[1], Palmer CJ, stated the need to respect police officers as follows:
    

“Police Officers are representatives of tateState in the administration of the rule of law and should be respected when they arrive at any scene of crime. They must be allowed to perform their duty inring that peace and normality is restored whether it be in e in a public place or in a private hThey are mediatodiators of peace, under strict duty and discipline, and are extensions of the arm of the People in so far as law and order is concerned. Thve noonal agenda or interest to fulfil when attending ding a&#16a criene and therefore shouldhould never be treated with hostility. They are there to keep the peace and protect life, limb and property...........An immediate custodial sentence must be expected wny police officer is a;is attack221;^[2]

13. I agree with this sentiment expressed by his Lordship and oblige to uphold it in my sentence. Hence, the court will not easily tolerate any offending when it involves an attack or assault on police officers during the course of performing their lawful duties.
    

Sentencing Consideration

14. Section 2 of the Police Act^[3] clearly creates this offence^[4] a serious offence. This new law shows a strong push by our Government to deter any crime that is carried out on police officers whilst performing their duties taking into account the importance of their duties.
    
15. When the circumstance of this case is considered, the offences were committed during the course of arresting a suspect and were done to minimize the chance for police to effectively carry out their duties. In my view, the assault on the police officer despite she had been advised to return to her home for rest is serious and one that considered seriously under section 190 of the Police Act.^[5]
    
16. After I carefully considered all these factors and balancing them with the mitigating, personal and aggravating factors, and the need for deterrence, it is my view that a fine or other forms of non-custodial sentence are not the appropriate form of sentence. To fairly reflect her criminality against the objective seriousness of the offence under the Police Act, a custodial sentence is inevitable or in other words, an appropriate form of sentence to be imposed on her.
    
17. Given that these two offences were committed together in the same night, it is my view that this form of penalty will apply to both offences.
    

SENTENCING ORDERS OF THE COURT

18. Against the respective maximum penalty for each offence, I hereby sentenced the accused, Lynsa Pauline as follows:
    
    • ◊ Using threatening, abusive or insulting words contrary to section 178 (n) of the Penal Code – 1 month imprisonment.
      
    • ◊ Assaulting police officer contrary to section 190 of the Police Act 2013 – 5 months imprisonment.
      
19. Both sentence will be concurrent since they were founded on the same set of facts and circumstances, meaning she will only serve 5 months imprisonment.
    
20. Any period spent in custody is to be deducted from this term of imprisonment.
    
21. 14 days right of appeal by any aggrieved party to this matter.
    

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE COURT

Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate

---

^[1] [2004] SBHC 131
^[2] At page 4
^[3] 2013
^[4] Assaulting a police officer
^[5] I bid