R v Ramai [2019] SBMC 33; Criminal Case 136 of 2019 (10 October 2019)

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

Criminal Case No. 136 of 2019

REGINA

-V-

TRUELYN PENILI RAMAI

Date of hearing: September, 12^th, 2019
Date of sentence: October 10^th, 2019

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

SENTENCE

1. On the 12^th of September, 2019, the Accused person Mr Truelyn Penili Ramai entered guilty pleas to two (2) counts of Domestic violence charges contrary to section 4 (1) (c) and 58 (1) & (2) of the Family Protection Act^[1]. He now come before this court today for his sentence.
   
2. The agreed facts reveal that on 7^th May, 2019, Police vehicle dropped off PC Ligau off at Hakaroa, the accused thought the Police officers who went to dropped off PC Ligau must went to see his wife (victim). He was Jealous.
   
3. On 8^th May, 2019, between 2:00am – 3:00am, at Hakaroa village, West Gizo, the accused after playing card games at the victim’s cousin sister’s house went back to their family home and started asking all sorts of questions to the victim. The victim stated she did not want them to argue but instead the accused got angry.
   
4. The accused with angry speech tone stated these following words to the victim in pidgin “Any good time yet ya, u must saveh dat every cross lo mind blo me must life time lo you ya herem? Ba me katem you into pieces osem na incident lo Titiana ya wea man katem wife blo hem lo bush knife ya”. This was not the first time for the accused person to threaten his wife (victim) so apparently, she was living in fear most of the time.
   
5. The second incident occurred on 16^th May, 2019, around 2:30pm at Hakaroa village. The accused and wife (victim) were lying in bed while the victim was watching a movie on their mobile phone. A while later, the accused got up and told the victim to put the phone away as the battery was getting low. The victim told him she would charge the phone later and kept watching the movie.
   
6. While the accused was talking to her she got up and went to her parents’ house where she continued watching the movie on her phone. The accused enraged, got up and followed her to the kitchen where an argument happened. Later, the accused proceeded and slapped the victim on the mouth. He then picked up a stone and used it to hit the victim three times on the shoulder. Fortunately, the victim’s sister then intervened and stopped the accused from further assaulting the victim.
   

Aggravating factors

7. Firstly, from the explicit threatening words he uttered demonstrates pre-planning on his part. This is not some ordinary threat but one that raises imminent fear to the victim’s right to life. Secondly, the accused conduct in repeatedly hitting the victim’s shoulder with a stone is serious, stone is a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting serious injury on a person’s body. Hence, the use of the stone is serious and uncalled for. Thirdly, the breach of trust, the victim is his own wife and mother to their child, someone who he ought to love, cherish and look after, instead he did otherwise. She is part of the vulnerable people in our communities who are defenceless and could not easily protect themselves against such physical assault.
   

Continued Abuse at home

8. It is plain to state that the victim (wife) has been subjected to continued murder threats and wife beating during their domestic courtship. The facts are disturbing. Clearly, it happened over sequence of time before he stopped when he was charged and remanded in custody in May, 2019.

Possible Causes of the Domestic Dispute

9. It is unclear from the facts as to what were the causes or matters which gave rise to accused behaviour apart from his jealousy. Obviously, there must be some reasons that triggered the accused person to act like what he did. In such absence from the facts, I am assisted with the defence submission, that the victim normally went out with her work colleagues and returned home drunk on numerous occasions, these are some of the factors which can potentially gave rise to jealously.

Expected Courtship

10. It is my view that the sentiments made by this court in the case of R v Ninamu^[2] is equally applicable in this present case, this court stated:

“Courtship is a very unique bond, it merges two different souls together and because of this, we are subject and susceptible to challenges in life, by trying to understand and accede to the other partner. Often times we may have thought that our individual view is correct and should form part of the final decision or conclusive and not accepting any views from the other, but this is incorrect, we accept to be with each other that is why that bond is fixed with two persons and not one, so be open minded and accept thorough discussions which potentially can lead to healthy marriage”.

“Of course, relationship or marriage so to speak, is subjected to many challenges in life, but we cannot always rely on violence and anger to settle issues or counter-challenges, that will only make it worst. The best way might be to accept such challenges and face it head on. For some of the challenges, it is humanly created, we crafted it our own. We create an issue when we behave improperly, going out with friends and alcohol when we have our family at home and expect to come back with open arms and food on the table, this is not correct – clearly the views of the other partner is stifled.”

11. The victim must not be exculpated from what had happened, she must partly be held accountable for his misbehaviours. There is no benefit from drinking alcohol, other than, its temporary illusionary pleasures which its negative effects outweighs its little or no advantage. She must now turn away from such attitude if she surely want to live a happy life with her husband. She must learn to be responsible and accountable for her own family instead of settling for such low-life attitude and so-called temporary friends.
    
12. Although having alluded the above, violence is never a way forward nor a way to resolve dispute. They must embed in them open-mindedness and constructive discussion regarding domestic issues which can help to easily resolve disputes and in turn promotes a healthy marriage. It is time now to put away other external activities which would normally create issues that can eventually lead to domestic argument. I must say that alcohol is never a way forward in a marriage, for some it might be manageable, for others it is simply not compatible, hence, would always be the catalyst to most arguments. But alcohol is not part of our life, hence, it should not be impossible to put away.

Aim of Family Protection Act 2014 and EVAW

13. The Family Protection Act is drafted in protecting violence against women and men who are in a domestic relationship. It predominantly mirrors the Convention on Elimination of Violence against Women (EVAW) and Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That is not to say, men are not subject to physical violence, some suffered violence under the hands of their wives, but the protection here is more focused to their vulnerability. In this case, it is clearly an assault against a defenceless woman who is the love of his life or his own dear wife.

Starting Point

14. Having assessed this case, the circumstance of offending and the accused level of culpability, it is my view appropriate to set a starting point as follows:
    1. Count 1 – 4 months’ imprisonment.
    2. Count 2 – 18 months’ imprisonment.
       
15. I accept that both offences occurred on separate dates, hence, although same victim, I shall invoke consecutive sentence in this case. Accordingly order that count 1 and 2 be dealt with consecutively. That is 22 months’ imprisonment.
    

Mitigating factors

16. I accept that the accused person entered guilty pleas to both offences which apparently save much of courts time and resources of having a trial. His pleas demonstrate remorse on his part. Accordingly, I deduct 25% from the starting point as reflected in case of Qoloni. I further reduce 4 months to consider his past clean criminal history. He and the victim have reconciled and living together or cohabiting again, I further reduce 6 months to reflect this reconciliation. It demonstrates the accused behaviour in accepting his wrongs and trying to make things work for his family. I accept the letter written by Rev. Beckily Kahui of Gizo United Church to confirm the reconciliation.

Sentencing principle

17. Of course, the predominant principle that the Courts normally applies in cases of domestic violence are Rehabilitation and Restoration which is to coincide with the common principle of deterrence. The overarching aim is for the accused to understand that wife beating and murder threats are serious and Courts will show abhorrence when sentencing offenders who practiced such illegal conduct. Further, to also allow both the accused and victim to appreciate their mistakes and make bold decision to rebuild their family together for a better life today and ahead.
    

Immediate custodial term

18. For reason that a weapon or stone was used to aid the execution of offence, I ruled out any suspended sentence today. Accordingly, I sentence the accused person – Mr Truellyn Penilli Ramai to 5 months’ imprisonment.
    
19. I acknowledge that this short and sharp sentence term will bring some light to the accused, so that he can reflect on his life and make a positive change in life for the betterment of his family and himself. Since both of them had ran to Church for reconciliation after the incident, it would be prudent for them to continue to attend church in good and bad times, because as I have always stated, all works of life we live today hinges on our divine saviour. However, do not use that avenue to impress the Court, if that is the motive then I must say it is ill-conceived and there’s foreseeable repercussion ahead if one go down that path.
    

Sentence Orders:

1. I hereby sentence the accused person to – 5 months’ imprisonment.
2. Sentence to commence from date of first remand, hence, pre-detention period must be considered.
3. 14 days right of appeal applies.
4. Order accordingly.

THE COURT

................................................
MR. LEONARD. B. CHITE

---

^[1] 2014

^[2] [2019] SBMC 31