Regina v Fangalea [2017] SBMC 54; Criminal Case 869 of 2017 (30 October 2017)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 869 of 2017

REGINA

V

GIDEON FANGALEA

Date of sentencing submissions: October 26, 2017
Date of sentence: October 30, 2017

Mr. L. Adifaka for the prosecution
Accused in person

SENTENCE

1. It is often said that people must think first before they speak or do anything since in the heat of a moment, it is easy to say and do anything that could lead to unfortunate consequences that later on they’ll regret. That is a message that I want to convey to the accused, Gideon Fangalea, who admitted assaulting the victim Richard Rasile on 20^th June 2017 at Betivatu Community High School in Guadalcanal Province. He assaulted the victim by slapping him with his open left palm and landed on his face.
   
2. The accused is a School Principal of Betivatu Community High School. The background circumstance that led to the commission of the offence is this. Before the incident, the victim’s sons and some of his friends were drunk and causing disturbances at the Betivatu School Compound to the extent that they vandalised the school properties and also uttered swearing words in the presence of the accused’s wife. This untoward behaviour has become intolerable that on the 20^th of June 2017 at about 10:00am or 11:00am, the accused met up with the victim inside the Betivatu School Compound and advised him to remind or advise his sons not to act disorderly or cause disturbances at the School compound. This did not go well with the victim so he started to argue with him, resulting in a commotion that made the accused slapped him with his left open palm. The victim sustained a minor cut measured 1 cm above his left eyelid.
   
3. During arraignment, he admitted that he assaulted the victim because he was so extremely provoked by the disrespectful attitudes shown by the victim’s sons towards the school properties and even to his wife.
   
4. From the facts narrated herein, I do understand that the reason why he assaulted the victim emanated from the untoward conducts of the victim’s sons and as the Principal of Betivatu school, he is one way of the other felt offended or perhaps disrespected of their outrageous behaviours. Despite the obvious provocation, the law does not allow him to take the law into his own hands. To assault another person is to commit a crime. Being a School teacher and moreover, in his capacity as the School Principal requires him to exercise common sense and address or resolve the issue in a more appropriate or civilised way other than resorting to crime as a means of resolving or even to satisfy his anger. I think that is the mistake he did resulting in the unnecessary injury he caused to the victim.
   
5. To his favour, I give him full credit for his guilty plea and for being remorseful. These reflected his genuine contrition and sorry for what he has done. I believe that he has already realised his mistake and will take step to see it is not repeated again in future. I also take into account that he is a first time offender and therefore, he has the benefit of a discounted sentence.
   
6. The facts of this case show that he committed the offence because he was very angry with what the victim’s sons had done to the school as the public institution and instead of the victim took home with him the advice, he however contributed to fuel the anger by exchanging words with him. I understand that the accused was trying to perform a public duty bestowed on him as the Principal of the Betivatu to ensure the school compound is free from vandalism and disorderliness but unfortunately, it somehow went beyond what the law requires.
   
7. In the present case, he admitted committing the offence of common assault contrary to section 244 of the Penal Code and the maximum penalty sanctioned by the law for this offence is 1 year imprisonment.
   
8. When the facts and circumstance of this case are considered and balancing them with the mitigating factors alluded to, it is my view that a non-custodial sentence is the appropriate sentence. I decide to sentence him under the option provided under section 24(3) of the Penal Code that states:
   

“24(3) A person liable to imprisonment for an offence may be sentenced to pay a fine in addition to or instead of imprisonment.”

9. Instead of imposing him custodial sentence, I hereby sentence Gideon Fangalea to pay a fine of $400 payable within 5 days from today. In default, 20 days imprisonment.
   
10. Right of appeal applies to any aggrieved party.
    
11. Order accordingly.
    

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COURT
Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate