Regina v Sukulu [2017] SBMC 55; Criminal Case 873 of 2017 (30 October 2017)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 873 of 2017

REGINA

V

DAVID SUKULU

Date of sentencing hearing: October 25, 2017
Date of sentence: October 30, 2017

Mr. L. Adifaka for the prosecution
Mr. C. Ruele for the accused

SENTENCE

1. The accused, David Sukulu, pleaded guilty to one count of wilful and unlawful damaging of the following properties: a 2 feet light valued $250, 2 buckets valued $156 and a wheel barrow valued $450. These were the personal properties of the complainant, Samuel Au. This contravenes section 326(1) of the Penal Code. The maximum penalty for this offence is 2 years imprisonment.
   
2. The complainant and the accused were blood brothers. On the 18^th of August 2017 after midnight, the accused was drunk and came to the complainant or his brother’s house at Kobito 3 in East Honiara. His brother came out and saw him armed with a knife and was standing in front of his house. He asked him if he wanted anything but he instead swore back at him and asked for his son, Billy Mae, to come out and fight with him. The complainant refused to follow what he said and advised him that the matter had already been settled or resolved.
   
3. The accused did not satisfy with his response and instantly swung the knife towards him but luckily he missed it and it landed on an umbrella. The complainant retreated, moved back into the house and closed the door. Later the accused walked down the ladder and as he reached underneath the house, he used that knife to damage 2 feet light bulb valued at $250, 2 buckets valued $156 and the wheel barrow valued $450 as mentioned earlier.
   
4. Following the incident, the complainant reported the matter to the police and was charged for the offence of malicious damage. He was arraigned on 25^th of October 2017 and admitted committing the offence.
   
5. At the outset, I am mindful that the offending occurred between two blood brothers and despite the grudges they had between themselves, there is a strong belief that is so entrenched in a family unit that this animosity will be amicably resolved between themselves in future when the timing is ready.
   
6. Despite of this possibility, I find the accused actions moments preceding the commission of the offence are inappropriate and exceed how he should approached his brother to solve the issue. First, he was armed with a knife. Second, he was drunk and went to his brother’s house after midnight to ask for his own nephew for fight. Third, realising that his request was unsuccessful, he then terrified his own brother by swinging the knife at him that made him quickly retreated into the house from further attacks. Finally, the destruction of the properties were unnecessary and callously done without any provocation. The accused needs to change his attitude as this does not reflect well on how he treated his own brother.
   
7. I consider the following as the aggravating factors for this case:
   
   • (a) The total value of the properties damaged was $856. The value is quite significant and one that cannot be easily earned within few minutes in order to quickly replace the damaged items;
     
   • (b) The accused was armed with a dangerous weapon and was acted aggressively when he destroyed the properties; and
     
   • (c) The offending occurred during the night.
     
8. The mitigating factors I consider in his favour are:
   
   • (a) The accused is a first time offender; and
     
   • (b) He entered guilty plea to the charges and thereby saving so much of the Court’s time and resources.
     
9. For his personal circumstances, I considered his remorsefulness. He also regretted what he had done to his own brother and his properties. It appears from his demeanour that he has a good prospect of rehabilitation as demonstrated by his own promise that he won’t repeat harassed or commit any offence again especially against his own family in the future.
   
10. To get an indication of the appropriate sentence, in R v Goro^[1], the offender pleaded guilty to a number of offences committed on three separate occasions in 2014 and 2015. Two of those occasions, he destroyed a veranda and walling of a house. He was sentenced to 5 months concurrent sentence for the malicious damage charges. The sentence was reached on the repetitive mode the offending was carried out against the same victim.
    
11. For the present case, it is only a one-off incident. Also, the facts of the case are slightly different in that the value of the damaged properties and the level of fear occasioned are not that significant as in the case of Goro. Further, the facts of this case are quite different and need to be carefully considered and decided. It has brought to my attention that the accused has been living with the complainant at and after the time of the offending until his arrest. In my view, if he is released, it is expected that he will end up again with his brother. Therefore, I feel the sentence that the Court will impose must focus on his rehabilitation and promote a reintegration into his own family unit. It is my view that the mending of his family relationship and their reunion in the future is far more important in a broader context than deterrence.
    
12. I believe that he has learnt a great deal of lesson for the offence he committed during the period he spent in custody and this should be a lesson learnt for him since by committing again the same or further offence in future, he will continue to be imprisoned.
    
13. I sentence him to 4 months imprisonment.
    
14. Presentence period is to be taken into account.
    
15. Right of appeal applies to any aggrieved party.
    
16. Order accordingly.
    

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

---

^[1] [2016] SBMC 24; Criminal Case No. 1277 of 2015