Regina v Alatala [2017] SBMC 57; Criminal Case 777 of 2017 (16 November 2017)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 777 & 1145 of 2017

REGINA

V

CHRIS ALATALA

Date of Sentencing Hearing: November 9, 2017
Date of Sentence: November 16, 2017

Mr. I. Tebakota for the prosecution
Accused in person

SENTENCE

1. The accused, Chris Alatala, is 17 year of age and is a juvenile. He is no longer a student. He is not a first time offender since his history showed that he had committed series of offences in the past, most of them are theft-related. He was given 1 year imprisonment on 18^th of May 2016 and since he had spent 10 months in custody, the balance of the term was suspended on the condition that he will not commit any offence for a period of 1 year starting from 18^th of May 2016. Less than 8 months during the operational period, he breached this condition when he committed a simple larceny offence which is one of the charges subject to this proceeding.
   
2. In light of this breach, I therefore order pursuant to section 45 (1)(a) of the Penal Code that the 2 months imprisonment term as the balance of the suspended term is reinstated accordingly.
   
3. Before he was arrested and placed in custody for this present case, he lives with his parents at Vura 2 and often times, he would live with his other relatives at the Karaina settlement near the White River 02 bustop area in Honiara.
   
4. On the 6^th of November 2017, he preferred the Court to have him arraigned without consulting a lawyer. He therefore pleaded guilty to simple larceny contrary to section 261(1) of the Penal Code, wilful and unlawful damage contrary to section 326(1) of the Penal Code, assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 245 of the Penal Code and escape from lawful custody contrary to section 199 of the Police Act.
   
5. The summary of facts regarding these offences are these. On the 31^st of December 2016 at about 11:00pm, he entered into a shop called Wonder Land at the White River 02 bustop and started to remove sleeves of cigarettes, a mobile phone and a wallet containing about $3000. It was when he was inside the shop that the owner of that shop entered and later caught him red-handed at a corner inside that shop. All the properties were taken out from him.
   
6. On the 18^th of June 2017, he and some boys from the Karaina settlement were drunk and had an argument with a driver of a RAV4 called Rodney and his brother Simon who was the owner of that RAV4. That argument started at Karaina and eventually down to the Hamoc beach where a quarrel occurred between them. The accused and his friends somehow left the scene early and returned back to Karaina to wait for them for their return to town. When Simon and Rodney returned and reached Karaina, the accused and his friends shot the vehicle twice with stones. The first one smashed the right back glass of the vehicle and the other one went through the vehicle and injured the left side shoulder of Rodney.
   
7. The final offending occurred on 4^th of October 2017 at about 5:25am when the accused was arrested and kept at Central Watch house. He asked the on-duty officer if she could release him so that he could smoke outside. As soon as he was released, he then escaped. He was finally rearrested on the 21^st of October 2017.
   
8. From these facts, it is clear that the accused even though he is a 17 year old young person had developed his mind to be a criminal. His involvement in stealing, ganged fighting involving use of stones and even to the point that he deceived a police officer whilst on duty in order to escape had supported that conclusion that he is not an ordinary juvenile but his mind has developed far beyond other juveniles of his age and has posed risks to the community. His mindset has advanced beyond his age only for committing crimes. On the previous occasion when he was sentenced, he promised that he will change his behaviour and will not commit anymore offence since prison life is not good. He made a false promise and never learnt from his past prison experience. In my view, even his parental teachings had become ineffective in light of his repeated offending. His behaviour has rendered me to say that he posed himself to become an element that can pose risks to communities where he come into contact with. Because of his tendency to steal others property, it is my view that the protection of the community and properties of others is a relevant sentencing consideration the Court must focus on herein.
   
9. The accused must know that the act of throwing stones at other people’s property, injuring others and stealing others properties are criminal acts. If confronted by police and charged, he could go to prison. He has already experienced that on previous occasions and there should not be any excuse on that.
   
10. His current criminal behaviour that he now develops needs to be changed otherwise, he will become a notorious offender in future. His lack of attending any school at present and his association with the boys or youths will certainly worsen his prospect of reforming his behaviour.
    
11. I find the following as the aggravating factors for the offences:
    
    • (a) He committed the stealing at night;
    • (b) He was drunk and in the company of others when he destroyed the vehicle and injured the complainant;
    • (c) Stone was used to injure the complainant;
    • (d) The victim sustained external tissue injury on his outer left shoulder;
    • (e) It involved planning since he and his friends had returned and waited for the complainant and his brother at Karaina so that they would attack the vehicle; and
    • (f) He deliberately lied or misled the police officer in order to escape from custody at the Watch House.
      
12. The mitigating factors in his favour are:
    • (a) He is a juvenile;
    • (b) He entered guilty pleas to the charges; and
    • (c) He is very remorseful for his actions.
      
13. I give full him full credit for all his mitigating factors.
    
14. When I considered these facts and taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, I therefore sentenced him as follows:
    
    • (1) Simple larceny contrary to section 261(1) of the Penal Code – 9 months imprisonment.
      
    • (2) Malicious damage contrary to section 326(1) of the Penal Code – 1 year imprisonment.
      
    • (3) Assault causing actual bodily harm contrary to section 245 of the Penal Code – 1 ½ year imprisonment.
      
    • (4) Escape from lawful custody contrary to section 199 of the Police Act – 4 months imprisonment.
      
15. The sentence for the malicious damage charge will be concurrent to the sentence for the assault causing actual bodily harm, meaning that a concurrent term of 1 ½ year term is imposed. This will be consecutive to the sentences for the simple larceny and the escape from lawful custody - meaning a total of 31 months or 2 years and 7 months. This term will be added to the 2 months term reinstated for the breach of the suspended sentence making it to a total or final sentence of 2 years and 9 months.
    
16. I understand that he is a juvenile and also, a repetitive offender. He has been clearly warned by the Court in the past not to reoffend again but failed to take heed of that warning and reoffended again even when he is still serving his suspended sentence. I do not think this sentence will have a crushing effect on him or even is too excessive.
    
17. What is more important is this. It is my view that his parents need to do more in teaching and moulding of his behaviours and attitudes and not to merely feed and provide him with his needs and wants as he grows up. This responsibility falls entirely on his parents and his present attitude and behaviour is a reflection of that failure. I say this because I have sent a message through the police for any of them to attend to his sentence today but none of them appear. This is a complete betrayal of their son who is more precious than their jobs or any earthly materialistic possessions and wealth they could ever have.
    
18. Period spent in custody is to be deducted from this sentence.
    
19. Order accordingly.
    

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