Regina v Pitamama [2018] SBMC 14; Criminal Case 506 of 2018 (23 May 2018)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 506 of 2018

REGINA

V

NICK PITAMAMA

Date of Hearing: May 18, 2018
Date of Sentence: May 23, 2018

Mr. Teula for the prosecution
Accused in person

SENTENCE

1. This is a sentence for the accused, Nick Pitamama, who pleaded guilty to one count of drunk and disorderly contrary to section 175(d) of the Penal Code. The accused is not new to committing crimes. He has 44 prior convictions from period 1993 – 2013.
   
2. Of the 44 convictions, 2 of them were drunk and disorderly offences and his will be his third. Why he did not learn from his past punishment/sentences is unclear and is still a hovering question. The fact that he committed again this offence that he has been sentenced for in the past shows that past sentences did not have any effect of positively reforming him to become a law abiding person.
   
3. For this charge, the facts of the case showed that on 17^th May 2018 at about 2:40pm, he was drunk and behaved disorderly in front of the Central Magistrate’s Court. He was holding a stone in his right hand and moving about aggressively. He was shouting loudly and that attracted the attention of the public. The crowd drew to him.
   
4. It was during that time that a police patrol team came by and apprehended him. He was placed in the back of the police vehicle and was escorted to the Central Police Station.
   
5. Few things I see had aggravated his offending. First, he was armed with a stone and was very aggressive and uncontrollable. This has the potential to terrify the public or someone who he was angry with the material time. Second, he committed the offence at the Central Magistrate’s Court vicinity. He should know that this building represents the third arm of the government called ‘the judiciary’ in so far as the separation of powers in a democratic country like Solomon Islands is concerned. By shouting loudly and moving around with a stone in his hand at the court’s vicinity, he utterly disrespected the court’s premises and those who worked and attended to the normal business of the magistracy.
   
6. In fairness to him, I take into account his early guilty plea, being a family man with two children and his remorse. He said sorry for what he did and said that the last time he was in prison was in 2013. He is currently working for a private law firm called Rano and Company. I give him full credit for that.
   
7. However, as I have said, he is not a first time offender and had been sentenced for this offence on two occasions in the past. He never learnt from the past occasions and continued to cross the red line. His 44 prior convictions showed he has not been positively reformed and by implication, he treated the past sentences imposed on him with ridicule.
   
8. For this case, I am guided by the general sentencing factors such as deterrence (specific and general deterrence), rehabilitation, restitution and retribution. From these sentencing options, there is this common notion that one of the duties of the court in sentencing an offender in criminal cases is not only for punishment but to ensure the offender does not repeat it again in the future. And if the sentence does little or no effect at all to a particular repeated offender, the Court must also be sensitive to this failure and adjust how it will sentence that offender accordingly.
   
9. That is the formula I prefer to use in sentencing the accused herein. The accused as of now must seriously learn to reform his behaviour if he wants to stop seeing the court and treat Rove Prison as his second home.
   
10. I take note of his concerns that his family will be affected by his incarceration. Perhaps in future, he should choose what is best for his family - whether to drink alcohol and commit a crime so that he will end up in jail or to settle down, stay out of crime and engage in positive things that will help him and his family.
    
11. I find his case is no different to other offenders who never learn and were sentenced in the past for this same offence the similar way.
    
12. Out of the maximum penalty of 2 months imprisonment, I therefore sentenced him to 1 month imprisonment.
    
13. Presentence period spent in custody is to be taken into account.
    
14. Right of appeal applies.
    

-----------------------------------------------

THE COURT

Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate