R v Tapata [2019] SBMC 32; Criminal Case 318 of 2018 (20 September 2019)

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

Criminal Case No. 318 of 2018

REGINA

-V-

DANIEL TAPATA

Date of plea: May 16^th, 2019
Date of hearing: September 12^th, 2019
Date of sentence: September 20^th, 2019

Mr. Ronnie Pisei for the Prosecution
Mr. Clifton Meleu Ruele for the Accused

SENTENCE

1. On or about 16^th May, 2019, the accused entered unequivocal guilty pleas to the offences of Intimidation contrary to section 231 (1) reading with section 22 of the Penal Code (Cap. 26) and Break and enter contrary to section 300 (a) of the Penal Code (Cap. 26). He was charged along with five (5) others, however, during arraignment he entered detached pleas of guilty. The delay since the month of May, was entirely on the part of the prosecution to consider a defence proposal, which they recently accepted and withdrawn the charge of wilful and unlawful damage. I shall now plunge into deliver my reasoning for his sentence.
   
2. The briefs facts reveal that on or about 1^st of December, 2018, around 7:00pm, the accused was identified as one of the men from Koloe village who entered Ziorokana Camp and terrorized its residents. The accused entered the camp with a group of men and started throwing rocks at buildings and machines. At that point in time, he had with him an iron rod which he picked up at the campsite.
   
3. Feared for their lives, the victim and most of the employees fled into the bush and some went to Kiloe village. While the others continue to terrorize the camp’s residents, the accused kicked the door of the canteen open and the group looted all the goods. The accused also helped himself to obtain 10 packets of BRO Cigarettes and half carton of Luncheon meat.
4. The accused and his group remained at the Camp until around 7:00am sunrise. The matter was reported to police and the accused was arrested and charged.
   
5. The fact that he was accompanied by a mob aggravates the offending, their physical presence itself would cause fear to the camp’s residents, let alone the throwing of stones on the buildings and looting the camp’s canteen. This is some high-level absurdity and senselessness on the accused and his groups part. I noted that this is a residential camp, hence, innocent children and women would be victimized of what the accused and his group did.
   
6. It has now become a norm especially in the Choiseul Province for purported landowners to orchestrate mobs to loot and ransack company’s property and terrorizing innocent workers. While I might accept that logging companies bring very little or no advantage to our rural communities, terrorizing the workers and ransacking the properties is not a proper way to resolve grievances. Peaceful protests and holding on to machineries as way of lien for unresolved promises might be one, but violence must never intrude. Intrusion of violence will only warrant an arrest and for one to be brought to court to face the full and vibrant force of the law.
   
7. Of course, our law recognizes the rights of those who are affected by illegal logging operations and I must admit, we sometimes fail to effectively move cases to deal with the grievances of innocent landowners, but again, this does not give any right to ransack, loot and threaten innocent people. This is utterly wrong and those who practice such attitude must now acknowledge that the law transparently penetrates all corners of our society and shall hold countable those who continue to do such illegal conducts.
   
8. The accused has entered an unequivocal guilty plea to the offences without any legal advice. He maintained his pleas even after Counsel Ruele took over this matter. He is a first offender and has no previous criminal record, this would be the first encounter with the law. He is a 26 years old young person with huge life to explore ahead of him.
   
9. I acknowledge that the maximum penalties of both offences are; Intimidation, 3 years’ imprisonment and for break and enter, 14 years’ imprisonment. These are serious offences which its punishments have reflected the stern approach to condemn and despise such offence from occurring within our rural and urban communities. It is the sentencing rule that cases are to be considered on their own set of facts and circumstances.
   
10. For reason that the accused was holding an iron rod, accompanied by an angry mob and was the forefront in the looting at camp’s canteen, his criminal culpability must be placed at the mid-range. There is some form of pre-planning involved in such happenings.
    
11. In R v Anika,^[1] Faukona J, stresset for casr cases involving house break-in, disregarding whether the accused is a juvenile or not a custodial sentence is inevitable. He then referred to the case of Paroke and Kuper v R>[2] and cited the folg remarks arks from Muria CJ:

"I do not accept the suggestion that because an offender is young and first offence, he should not be sent to prison. In cases of serious crime, anse breaking is such a crimecrime, the court must reflect the seriousness of the crime in the sentence they pass upon a young offender".^[3]

12. In the case of R v Zoni^[4], His Worship Aulanga (PM) stated;
    

“The attitude of breaking into other people’s building for the sake of stealing in my view only show people who are lazy and only benefit through unlawful means from other people’s efforts and sweat. Further, it has no place in our modern Solomon Islands societies either in the rural or urban area. Time and time again, this type of offending only brings bad image to our country because of only few individuals like in your case with no care attitude. The Court as the institution which the people of this country put their faith and trust on must stand up right against such offending and must deter accordingly those who indulge in this type of serious offending.

13. Anyone who is convicted of store and house break-in, unless exceptional circumstance shall expect no leniency but an immediate custodial sentence.
    
14. Having assessed the circumstance of the offending, the apparent aggravating factors and the cited case with the accused level of culpability. It is my view that the appropriate starting points are as follows:
    • (a) Intimidation – 8 months’ imprisonment
    • (b) Break and enter – 18 months’ imprisonment
      
15. Taking into account the mitigating factors submitted on his behalf by his lawyer, I impose the following final sentence:
    • (a) Intimidation – 4 months’ imprisonment
    • (b) Break and enter – 10 months’ imprisonment
      
16. Since both offences occurred within the same incident or transaction, I order that both counts be served concurrently. Hence, he shall serve the 10 months’ imprisonment to reflect both offences.

Sentence Order:

1. I sentence the accused Mr. Daniel Tapata to 10 months’ imprisonment.
2. The sentence to commence from date of first remand.
3. Right of appeal applies within 14 days.
4. Order accordingly.
   

THE COURT

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

---

^[1] [2008] SBHC 91; HCSI-Criminal Review Case 762 of 2008
^[2] Unrep Criminal Case No. 21 of 1999
^[3] At page 2
^[4] [2016] SBMC 10; Criminal Case 655 of 2015