R v Sasa [2019] SBMC 5; Criminal Case 15 of 2017 (17 January 2019)

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

Criminal Case No. 15 of 2017

REGINA

-V-

JEROL SASA

Date of Hearing: January 16^th, 2019
Date of Sentence: January 17^th, 2019

Mr. Ronnie. Pisei for the prosecution
Mr. George Gray for the defendant

SENTENCE

Introduction:

1. Mr. Jerol Sasa, you appear before me today on a charge of Arson contrary to section 319 (a) of the Penal Code. You pleaded guilty accordingly, as such, I enter conviction on your own guilty plea. Therefore, I must make an appropriate sentence for your case.
   

Brief facts:

2. The brief facts are clear that on 12^th January 2017, you were drinking and was angry with Mr. Bitia Bae, the victim’s son who assisted the police and raided your marijuana patch. You could not control your anger towards the victim’s son, hence, you took a box match, went to the victim’s place of residence and set fire to their home-based leaf house kitchen, which was situated near their dwelling house. The Victim woke up in time and manage to put out the fire with the help of her family members, fortunately before the fire could wholly consumed the kitchen.
   
3. The leaf house kitchen’s roof and wall were partly burnt when the family put the fire out.
   

Max Penalty:

4. The maximum penalty for Arson per section 319 (a) of the Penal Code is life imprisonment. This shows or indicated the intention of the legislatures or law making body to abhor or discourage such offending. Of course, it is trite law that the maximum penalty is reserved for the worse type of offending.
   
5. The sentencing tariff ranges from suspended sentence to 4 years’ imprisonment. Depending on the circumstance of the offending and level of culpability involved.

Aggravating factors:

6. Having perused the brief facts, these are of course the apparent aggravating factors in you case:
   
   • 6.1. The offence was committed at night – offences occurred at night puts the life and property of the victim at risk, they were asleep and know nothing about your actions. It was so fortunate that they woke up, if not, the fire might attract further damages to other properties and might costs lives.
     
   • 6.2. The offence is premeditated – You used your anger towards the victim’s son to drive you in executing this offence. Clearly, you have pre-knowledge and planned to execute this offence.
     

Case authorities:

7. In Kaieti v Regina^[1], The appellant was convicted and sentenced at the Magistrates Court to 3 years’ imprisonment. On appeal against sentence, the High Court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. The property involved is a dwelling house valued about $15,000.
   
8. In Oli v Regina^[2], Criminal appeal case no. 124 of 2008 – the appellant was convicted on his own plea for 7 counts of arson involving 6 dwelling houses and a classroom. He was sentenced to 3 years on each count to be served consecutively with another term of 4 years giving the total of 7 years imprisonment. On appeal against sentence the High Court substituted 2 years for each count to be served concurrent with another term of 2 ½ years summing up to 2 ½ imprisonment.
   
9. In case of R v Moula^[3], Criminal case No. 187 of 2002 – The Defendant and two others were convicted at the High Court on their own pleas and each sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with each offender’s sentence partly suspended to reflect the degree of their participation, giving the principal offender serving 3 months and his co-defendant 2 months imprisonment. The total of the damage caused amount to $355,000. The offenders’ age ranges from 16 – 18 years.
   
10. In Regina v Mino^[4] Criminal case No. 4 of 1997 – the Defendant was sentenced to 3 ½ years. The Defendant carried out the offence with cool and calculated efficiency and the value of property was about a quarter million dollars.
    
11. In case of Regina v Rere^[5] The Defendant was convicted after trial for procuring others to burn four (4) houses at wind ridge, east Guadalcanal Province. The Magistrates Court sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment concurrently. This was a blatant burning on innocent people’s houses and putting lives of the victims at risks on that very occasion as well.
    
12. 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 within the lower range of Arson.
    

Sentencing principle:

13. In terms of sentencing, the cardinal principle is simple, that is, each case must be decided on its own unique set of facts. Past cases can only be used as a guide and sometimes can be of little value. In Sahu v Regina^[6] 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.

Starting poin point:

14. Having considered the abovementioned aggravating fs including the circumstancstance of the offending and due consideration to the tariffs provided in the cases cited herein, I see it appropriate that the starting point is 12 months’ imprisonment.
    

Mitigating factors:

15. I take due account to the following factors as mitigation in your case: -
    
    • 15.1. Guilty plea – all of you have entered some unequivocal guilty pleas to the charge against you. Although, it might seem as a late plea I shall give full discount available in the case of R v Qoloni that is 30 % 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.
      
    • 15.2. First time offender – You are a first-time offender which means that this is the first time for you to have the brush with the law. Clearly, there’s prospect of rehabilitation.
      
    • 15.3. Personal circumstances – You are 21 years old, clearly a youth and someone who still have a long life to live.
      

Sentencing consideration:

16. I hereby reduce 4 months to consider your guilty plea, 2 months to consider that you are a first-time offender and your youthfulness.
    
17. The resulting sentence is therefore, 6 months’ imprisonment.
    

Sentencing Order:

18. I hereby sentence you Mr. Jerol Sasa to 6 months’ imprisonment.
    
19. I agree that there’s some prospect of rehabilitation, after this offence, you never committed any further offence. It is your cry to further your education to fulfill your dream as a professional mechanic, I see it appropriate not hinder such development in your young life and future endeavors. Hence, it follows that I invoke section 44 of the Penal Code and hereby suspend the term of 6 months’ imprisonment wholly for 2 years as of today on the condition that you will not commit any offence during the suspension period. A breach of this condition will result in the automatic reinstatement of the term suspended.
    
20. 14 days right of appeal applies.
    
21. Order accordingly.
    

THE COURT

...........................................................................
MR. Leonard B Chite
Principal Magistrate

---

^[1] [2007] SBHC 93; HCSI-CRC 358 of 2006
^[2] [2008] SBHC 43
^[3] [2004] SBHC 74
^[4] [1997] SBHC 40
^[5] [2017] SBMC 48
^[6] [2012] SBHC 122