Regina v Tapalia [2017] SBMC 29; Criminal Case 953 of 2016 (19 July 2017)

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

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 953 of 2016

REGINA
-v-
DONATION TOHASONIA TAPALIA

Date of Hearing: July 13, 2017
Date of Sentence: July 19, 2017

L. Waroka for the defence
R. P. Abe for the prosecution

SENTENCE

1. This is a sentence for the accused, Donation Tohasonia Tapalia, who pleaded guilty to burning of three dwelling houses at Listra village in the Guadalcanal Province. He burnt the houses during the early hours of 25^th October 2016 when it was still dark. One of the houses was owned by his mother in-law whilst the other two were owned by his brother in-laws.
   
2. Before the houses were burnt, they already left and settled in another village in fear of verbal threats made by the accused. However, their personal belongings were still inside the houses. He burnt the houses because he was angry with his in-laws or the house owners for damaging his food crops.
   
3. During the course of the sentencing hearing, counsels raised an important issue of whether his sentence should be concurrent or consecutive. The prosecution asked for consecutive while the defence opted for a concurrent sentence.
   
4. There is no issue that the burning of the house took place at the same morning despite the houses were owned by different persons.
   
5. Sentence handed by our superior courts for offending against different victims when committed at the same time always concurrent. For example, the case of Nguyen Van Thang v R^[1] which involves the unlawful killing of the deceased and wounding of another victim at the same night in a fishing vessel whereby the accused sentence was ordered to serve concurrently. Also, the case of R v Randy^[2] where the accused received a concurrent sentence of 5 years for burning down two houses of different owners at the same time.
   
6. Therefore, in my view, the sentence ought to be imposed for Tapalia should be concurrent because the burning of the houses occurred at the same location and took place within a short span of time.
   
7. I now turn to his sentence.
   
8. As I have said, the accused burnt three houses of different persons. The reason why he decided to burn the houses was due to his anger for destroying his food crops. Despite the actions of the victims in one way or the other may provoke the accused, the decision to burn their dwelling houses is too extreme and callous. He should have resolved this issue in a nonviolent and lawful way other than resorting to committing a crime. There are many reasonable and appropriate ways to resolve this disagreement but not as what resorted to by the accused.
   
9. Also, three houses were destroyed or burnt down as a result of his action. He should have retracted and realized the inappropriateness of his action and its effect it has on the owner of the house after he burnt the first house. However, he decided not to, but continued to satisfy his evil desire resulting in the burning of the three houses. That is totally an inhumane and senseless act. A man’s house whether it be made of thatched or modern materials represents his life and existence. So by destroying a man’s house is another way of destroying his life and existence.
   
10. I have also noted that he carried out the offending during the night. That shows he had planned to carry out the offending as those who did not want people to detect them would prefer night time to carry out the offending.
    
11. I take into account his guilty pleas, his remorse and being a family man for purposes of his sentence. The sentence that I will impose must reflect a sentence normally impose for guilty plea matters in our jurisdiction taking into account that this case has to be sentenced on its own set of facts.
    
12. Previously he had been imprisoned for an arson charge and I think, all the matters he raised in his mitigation especially his personal matters are not new of what being submitted previously.
    
13. For first time offenders, they expect a lenient sentence because of their first encounter with the law. For subsequent offenders, they will not get that benefit.
    
14. The accused had already experienced the anguish of a prison life when he was imprisoned for 2 years in 2010 for the same offence. Despite that, he continued to take the risk and committed the same offence again however in quite a larger scale.
    
15. Therefore, the element of public protection is a relevant factor in this sentence.
    
16. I am mindful that there comes a time he will come to realise what he did was not good and perhaps, he will change his attitude and ways of thinking after serving his imprisonment term. The remaking and renewing of his life in future is an equally important aspect that the court must also promote when sentencing an offender since after all, we are all humans and are prone to make mistakes. Furthermore, this offending involves his family members and hence, the sentence that the court will impose should not be a barrier for his reunion with the victims in future.
    
17. I sentence him to 3 ½ years imprisonment for each charge. This term takes into account the aggravating, mitigating and the delay this matter has taken to have it finalized. This term will run concurrent to all charges.
    
18. Times spent in custody is to be taken into account.
    
19. 14 days right of appeal applies.
    

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

---

^[1] SBCOA 13 of 2013
^[2] 2005 SBHC 57