Regina v Manu [2017] SBMC 25; Criminal Case 987 of 2016 (27 June 2017)

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

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 987 of 2016

REGINA
-v-
FRED MANU

Date of Hearing: June 20, 2017
Date of Sentence: June 27, 2017

L. Adifaka for the Prosecution
C. Hite for the Defence

SENTENCE

1. Fred Manu (“offender”) pleaded guilty to one count of house break-in contrary to section 300(a) of the Penal Code and one count of resisting arrest and escape contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code.
   
2. The offender is 16 years old and lives with his parents at Ranadi when he committed the offences. He was brought up from a home where his parent’s relationship was unstable, often acrimonious and their lifestyle was dominated by drunkenness. This made him unable to continue with his primary education and left school only at grade 4. He was neglected and often times stay at home without food the whole day. Having grown up in this unfortunate environment inevitably led him to associate more with his peer groups at Ranadi and eventually, he started to act rebellious and resort to stealing as a means of finding money. Hence, this led him to the commission of these offences.
   
3. The brief synopsis of how he committed the offences revealed that on 2^nd December 2016 during the night, the offender ventured in the dark and broke into an upstair block of a building owned by John Razak at Ranadi area. He gained entry into that house by climbing up the building, removed the lover blades and entered through one of the windows. When he was inside the building, he went into one of the rooms and removed a box containing jewelries, shoes, handbags and clothes. The total value of the goods stolen was $5,000.
   
4. On the next day, he tried to sell those items to neighbors at Ranadi area but they were already been aware that those were properties stolen from Razak’s building. Police was called to investigate into the suspicious sale conducted by the offender. He was sighted along the Ranadi main road but escaped when he saw police was following him. He was arrested at a location closer to the Top Timber yard and taken to Naha Police Station for interrogation. While the police officers were busy preparing documents for his interview at the police station, he somehow escaped. He was finally arrested by police 10 days later when he was sighted at Vura 3 bus stop area.
   
5. All the goods were recovered.
   
6. In this case, the offender broke into the building during the night. He posed an obvious risk to the safety of Razak as it is expected that he could have been asleep that night and hence at the mercy of the offender. Also, this offending involves forethought as it was carried out under the cover of darkness when the owner of the property is usually fast asleep and mostly unaware. I think those are the aggravating factors for this case.
   
7. However, the stolen properties were already recovered and thus, the owner of the goods did not suffer any loss to his properties. This is an extenuating factor that warrants his case to be considered differently from other theft related offending where the properties stolen were never recovered.
   
8. Having acquitted with the circumstance of his offending and since he is a juvenile, the sentencing principles embodied in the Juvenile Offenders Act applies in this case. For a start, I take into account the sentiments expressed by then CJ Muria in Paroke and Kuper v R^[1] that seemed to lay down the general rule that custodial sentence is normally an appropriate form of sentence for young offenders for offences where house break-in is an example.
   
9. Section 16 of the Juvenile Offenders Act provides the method of dealing with young offenders when charged with offences. Given that the offence of house break-in is a felony with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, the objective seriousness of this offence requires custodial sentence an inevitable option.
   
10. However, as I have said, all the properties stolen in this case have already been recovered. Thus, this case has to be sentenced on its own set of facts.
    
11. I am of the view that even though the purpose of sentencing him is to protect the community from likeminded offenders; to deter offenders or other persons from committing the same or similar offence in future; to reflect the court and the public condemnation of this type of offending and to ensure his rehabilitation is promoted or facilitated meaningfully; the sentencing court should be mindful that while he bears the responsibility of his own actions or offences committed, he is in need of guidance, assistance and protection because of his state of dependency, vulnerability and immaturity. Therefore, it is prudent when imposing a sentence the aim is as much as possible to allow him to remain within a family circle that promotes his welfare so that he becomes an useful member of the society at the end of the day.
    
12. As often advocated by the court, the sentence should not be an obstacle for him to mingle with the society and hinder his renewing of his character into the society when he releases from prison. That is the reality checklist when it comes to sentencing juveniles. The present offender is no exception to this consideration as opposed to an adult offender.
    
13. In the case of R v AH,^[2] the Supreme Court of New South Wales made the following remarks which I think is a relevant principle when sentencing juveniles:
    

“In sentencing an offender who commits a crime at the age of 16 years and eight months, principles of retribution and general deterrence may be of less significance than when sentencing an adult offender for the same offence. Recognition is to be given to the capacity of young persons to reform and mould their character to confirm to society's norms, with considerable emphasis to be placed on the need to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. In considering the role of retribution on sentence, the Court will have regard to emotional immaturity or a young person's less-than-fully developed capacity to control impulsive behaviour”^[3]

14. The sentiments expressed in that New South Wales case is a persuasive authority and perhaps a reference point for our courts to follow when faced with the issue of sentencing juveniles in our jurisdiction.
    
15. On the other hand, despite the colorful sentiments in favor of juveniles, the recent unprecedented increase of juveniles committing these type of offences in Honiara requires the court not to turn a blind eye to this social reality and must adjust its stands when it comes to sentencing.
    
16. Entering into people’s dwelling house at night for the sake of stealing is an abhorrent crime totally unacceptable by the courts and the public at large. Every inhabitant of this country deserves to live in homes that are safe and free from the evils of thieves and thugs. The judicial officers, the prosecutors and the defence lawyers are not exempted to victims of crime so I believe we all deserve this same expectation. Therefore, the need for deterrence in light of the current experience faced in Solomon Islands is the overarching principle I must uphold in this sentence.
    
17. In his Social Welfare Report dated 9^th May 2017, his father had been advised and well aware of the need to adjust his lifestyle so that it is suitable for the welfare and development of the offender’s character when he returns to him. He promised that he will support his son by building a small market stall in front of their house to avoid him getting into trouble. The Report recommends that he be given another chance to amend his ways of behaviour under the care and supervision of his father Sam Faluteasu.
    
18. Based on the matters raised in this sentencing remarks and considering he is a first time offender, I hereby sentenced the offender as follows:
    
    • The charge of house break-in contrary to section 300(a) of the Penal Code – 14 month imprisonment, and
      
    • The charge of resisting arrest and escape contrary to section 125 of the Penal Code – 6 months imprisonment.
      
19. Given these two offences are founded on the same set of facts, I order that they will run concurrently.
    
20. This concurrent sentence will commence on the date he was taken into custody and that is, on 14^th of December 2016.
    
21. Since he had already spent 7 months in custody, I order that he is to be released from prison forthwith to serve the balance of his term with his family and committed to the care and supervision of his father Sam Faluteasu.
    
22. 14 days right of appeal applies.
    

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

---

^[1] (Unrep Criminal Case No. 21 of 1999)
^[2] [2011] NSWSC 1535

[3] Referred to in State v K.R.A.K - Sentence [2013] FJHC 339; HAC73.2013 (17 July 2013) at paragraph 21