R v Homelo [2019] SBMC 16; Criminal Case 85 of 2019 (25 March 2019)

IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT MAGISTRATE’S COURT )
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT GIZO )
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 85 of 2019

REGINA

-V-

AKI HOMELO

Date of Hearing: March 23^rd, 2019
Date of Sentence: March 25^th, 2019

Ms. Trisha. Korokini for the prosecution
Accused in person

SENTENCE

Introduction:

1. Mr. Aki Homelo, you appear before me today on a charge of Willful and Unlawful Damage contrary to section 326 (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Cap. 26). You pleaded guilty and accordingly I enter conviction on your own guilty plea. Therefore, I must make an appropriate sentence for your case.
   

Brief facts:

2. The facts which you agreed to tender to Court shows that, on 20^th March 2019, between 11:00pm and 12:00am, the Toyota Caldina registration number MC0416 parked at Dunken’s Canteen to buy food.
   
3. You and your two friends were drinking alcohol that night and attended to Dunken’s canteen. Being totally drunk, you approached the Toyota Caldina and hit the back-rear glass with a hard object. Thereafter, the driver stopped and went to found out that the back-rear glass was broken.
   
4. The owner of the vehicle, Mr. Solomon Wickham reported the matter to police and you were arrested and charged for the offence of Wilful and Unlawful Damage contrary to section 326 (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Cap. 26).
   

Maximum penalty:

5. The maximum sentence for offence of Wilful and Unlawful Damage is 2 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty only reveals the abhorrent, hateful and utter disgust attitude by the lawmakers or legislators to address “no tolerance” for such offending in our modern and rural societies.
   
6. It is acknowledged that the maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment term is normally reserved for the worst type of wilful and unlawful damage cases.
   

Aggravating factors:

7. Having gone through the facts of your case, I find the following to be the aggravating factors: -
   
   • 7.1. Use of weapon – the use of weapon to aid an execution of offence is serious. This is because the result is worse compared to if it was without any weapon. You used a hard object to damage the back-rear screen.
     
   • 7.2. Intoxicated during time of offending – You were drunk when you committed this offence. In case of R v Oma, the court express the view that those who take alcohol to commit an offence must accept the consequences that stems out from it and expect no leniency from the Court.
     
   • 7.3. Unprovoked act – The actions were uncalled for and unnecessary, you simply damage the vehicle’s back-rear screen by your own accord which you said to have emanated out of your happiness to being released from custody. I disagree, this is a callous act on an innocent person’s property.
     
   • 7.4. Occurred at night – offences that occurred during night or dark put the safety of the driver, passenger and the vehicle at risk. This is because the fear that ran through the driver will be enormous compared to if it was daylight. Had he panicked he would have drove without due care and attention to pose more risk to lives and properties that night.
     
   • 7.5. Repeated offender – You are not a first-time offender, you have previous conviction for similar offence and has just released on 9^th of March 2019. Clearly, you did not learn from your initial incarceration.
     

Case Authorities:

8. In R v Alatala^[1], the accused is a juvenile. He pleaded guilty to a count of willful and unlawful damage and was sentenced to one year imprisonment.
   
9. In case of R v Junior^[2] the accused pleaded guilty to a count of willful and unlawful damage and was sentenced to 5 months’ imprisonment. The facts are that he and others entered a birthday venue and he shouted saying “fuckem mumm sistesister blong yufala everyone.” After he uttered swearing ring words, he lashed his right hand at a lighting bulb and smashed it into pieces. Next, he moved to another bulb and kicked it with his left leg ande it as well. He then moved to another bulb and smashed it d it with his right hand. Still not satisfied with those bulbs, he moved over to a table, lifted it up and threw it to the ground.
   
10. Having outlined the above cases which reveals the ranges of tariffs applied in Courts within this Jurisdiction, it is in my view that this case when compared to the above cited cases falls in between the mid-range and upper range of this offence.
    

Sentencing Principle:

11. The predominant principle during sentencing is that cases must be dealt and decided on their own set of facts. In Sahu v Regina^[3], the Court stated;
    

“It is well accepted that the technique of comparing sentences imposed in different cases is of limited assistance and provides only imperfect guidance as to the appropriate sentence in any given case.” However, to ensure uniformity and coherence, past cases can be of significant assistance.

Sentencing remarks:

You are a young youth full of life and energ is so sad to see that you have already taken this track or path at your early stages in liin life. This path is predictable, that is, going on a troublesome journey that will one day resulted to a hard hit on a brick wall. In essence, this path will lead you nowhere but circling around delusion and deceptional life in this world.

13. Your previous cases reveal that you were intoxicated with alcohol when you committed those offences. Alcohol is a catalyst to the many offences that happened in our communities today. Although, it might have benefits, such as relieving oneself from stress and pressure of today’s world, it is just temporary stress relieving substance. Its disadvantage outweighs its very little or no advantage. It stimulates the mind to easily submit to rage, anger and violence, to trick the mind into saying that you are strong and cannot be defeated. But when all is said and done, you are in your bed recollecting and unravelling the bad and disgraceful things that you have done. You can’t redo your wrong because it has already done damage, you are sad and sorry for your actions, but the court aggravates it to determine your appropriate sentence.
    
14. It is now time for you to move on from alcohol and bad peers that will simply lead you back to doing bad things. There is more to life than drinking alcohol and roaming the night with your so-called buddies. You might one day reflect on your life’s journey and how far you have come, we all make mistakes but the important thing is to learn and never repeat the mistakes. This Court wants nothing but the best for you and your future self. It is now or never, learn from your weak areas and conduct to build a better you.
    
15. In Cameron-v-Queen Guadron, Gunnow and Callinana, said (at page 346) "In the case of a youthful offender rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence. This is because punishment may in fact lead to further offending."
    
16. While I appreciate, the sentiments shared in the above case, you are not a first-time offender and the span it took for you to reoffend is so narrow and close in proximity. It is my view, that an imprisonment term is inevitable.
    

Starting point:

17. A close look at the circumstance of the offending, your level of culpability and the apparent aggravating factors in your case, it is my view that the appropriate starting point is 2 years’ imprisonment.
    

Mitigating factors:

18. I have considered that following to be your only mitigating factor: -
    
    • 18.1. Guilty plea – You entered an unequivocal guilty plea to the charge against you. I shall give full discount available in the case of R v Qoloni that is 25 % discount. Clearly it shows that you have own up to your wrongs and accept the consequences. Your guilty pleas show remorse and saves courts time and resource to run a full trial.
      

Sentencing consideration:

19. I hereby reduce 6 months to consider your guilty plea. The resulting sentence is therefore, 18 months’ imprisonment.
    

Sentencing Order:

20. I hereby sentence you Mr. Aki Homelo to 18 months’ imprisonment.
    
21. Time spent in custody or any pre-detention period must be deducted from this head sentence.
    
22. 14 days right of appeal applies.
    

THE COURT

...........................................................................
MR. LEONARD. B. CHITE
Principal Magistrate

---

^[1] [2017] SBMC 57
^[2] [2017] SBMC 23
^[3] [2012] SBHC 122