Regina v Omea [2020] SBMC 1; Criminal Case 82 of 2019 (27 January 2020)

IN THE MALAITA DISTRICT MAGISTRATE’S COURT )
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT AUKI )
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 82 of 2019

REGINA

-v-

SIMON OMEA

Date of hearing: January, 24^th, 2020
Date of sentence: January 27^th, 2020

Mr. Geoffrey Angi for the Prosecution
Mr. Oxley Limeniala for the Accused

SENTENCE

Introduction

1. On the 24^th of January 2020, the accused person – Simon Omea, entered an explicit guilty plea to a count of Unlawful Wounding Contrary to section 229 of the Penal Code^[1]. I had formally registered conviction against his name on his own guilty plea and had set this case for today to deliver my reasoning for his sentence, I now proceed to do so.

Agreed Facts

2. The agreed facts revealed that on the 7^th of July 2019, the accused and the victim both drunk at the accused person’s residence. After drinking, the victim told his wife to accompany him back to their home. The victim’s wife refused to follow him, it angered the victim and he swore at his wife “Fuckem Dad blo you”, the accused heard that and told the victim to stop that kind of swearing, and should treat his wife with respect.
3. The victim then went into his vehicle, reversed it and hit the accused water tank. The accused shouted and walked towards the victim saying “what kind of driving was that”. The victim responded by swearing at the accused. The accused responded and told the victim to respect him since he is his uncle. The victim got off the vehicle, walk towards the accused and punched the accused person’s left side eye. When the accused fell on the ground, the victim then kicked him on his left side eye.
   
4. The Accused person got up, got hold of a bush knife and swung it towards the victim’s face, which landed on his nose. He sustained few laceration and was taken to Kilufi Hospital for medical treatment. He was later got discharged from the Hospital the same night.
   

Medical report

5. The medical report revealed that the victim suffered laceration on his right forehead, nasal laceration and laceration on his left forearm. I cannot precisely ascertain the extent of the lacerations for reason that the word ‘Laceration’ is too general. It is unclear as to the length, width and depth of those referred lacerations. The victim received sutured laceration or stitch on his nose (facial area) and other areas. I am uncertain as to whether the sharp or blunt side of the bush knife was used.
   

Aggravating factors

6. I have assessed the agreed facts and find the following to be the aggravating factors:
   
   1. Use of weapon – The accused used a bush knife to execute the offence. Bush knife is clearly a dangerous weapon that if applied against a person, it will surely inflict serious injury.
      
   2. Intoxicated during the commission of offence – The accused was intoxicated during the date of offending. While I acknowledge his intoxication, I am also guided with the fact that he was not the instigator or person who initiated the criminal act.
      
   100. The wounds were inflicted on the victim’s facial part of the body and arm– the human face compared to other organ of the human body is very important, for reason that it houses vulnerable structures including the human brain. This is balanced with the lack of proper information on the extent of the wound on his face.
        

The Prescribed Punishment

7. The accused is charged for Unlawful Wounding contrary to section 229 of the Penal Code (Cap 26). The stated provision brings Five (5) years imprisonment as the maximum prescribed penalty. This is of course, one of those relatively serious offences under our laws and has been condemned and detested by Courts in this jurisdiction.
   
8. The recognized sentencing range is from 12 months to 4 ½ years’ imprisonment^[2], depending on the extent of injury, the level of criminal culpability and the nature of offending.
   
9. Although having stated the above, it is settled law in this jurisdiction that the maximum penalty is reserved for the worst type of offending and that cases are decided on their own set of facts and merit. That is to say, no two cases are the same and the courts must never apply blanket approach or to simply transpose a sentence in another case to the case at hand.
   

Comparable cases

10. While I acknowledge the comparable cases provided by both prosecutor and defence counsel; Regina v Bala^[3], Regina v Tagini^[4], Regina v Taniamae^[5] and R v Tome^[6], I must say that most if not all of the cited cases relates to much serious type of unlawful wounding cases. For those cited cases, the medical report explicitly exemplifies the seriousness of the wound and the accused criminal culpability rest on a much higher scale.
11. For reason that the accused person had reacted out of the assaults done on him by the victim and the swift span of time he took to react with the knife, I find his culpability as one that is lesser compared to if he had planned it or if the time span was wide to give him sufficient time to think or reason his action and its likely consequences.
    

Mitigating factors

12. I have validated the following as mitigating factors on the accused part:
    
    1. Guilty plea – The accused person has entered an early guilty on the charge of unlawful wounding against him. I agree that his plea alone and physical appearance in Court demonstrates genuine remorse on his part and or to own up to his wrongdoing. His guilty plea has saves much of courts time, resources and possible expense to run a full trial.
       
    2. No Prior Conviction/ First Offender – The accused person is a first offender and has been a law abiding citizen for the past 40 years of so. He has a past clean criminal history before this case. I shall regard him as a first-offender.
       
    100. Reconciliation and payment of compensation – The accused person has reconciled with the victim who apparently is his nephew and paid compensation of two (2) red monies valued at around $2,400. They both submitted themselves before the priest to which he prayed for them to seal the reconciliation.
         
    4. Unplanned Act – I accept that the accused person’s unlawful act was not a premeditated act but one done out of spontaneous reaction for the assaults that the victim had done to him.
       

Sentence remarks

13. This is an avoidable situation, that if not for the victim’s disrespectful and ill-mannered actions it would not have turned out nasty this way. I noted that he was the instigator who punched the accused and when he fell on the ground he then kicked his face. The accused has acted out of anger which he has now suffered consequences for it.
    
14. The accused reacted to the assault by the victim which caused him to grab hold of the bush knife and applied it on the victim’s facial area and left arm. Although I noted that victim initially assaulted him on his face by a punch and a kick, this is a guilty plea matter and should not exculpate him for his unlawful actions. He should never had resorted to violence, in fact, both of them should not allow temper to control one’s own self-control.
    
15. They both need to restructure their mindset and perspective into a much better, brighter and prospective things, things that encourages and embodies peaceful and non-violent strategies and approaches in their daily living. Fighting or violence will only bring division, disunity and disharmony into families, communities and country as a whole.
    
16. This generation must now start to set a much better lens on resolving disputes or disagreements, that is to say, in a peaceful and lawful manner, instead of succumbing to anger, resentment and temper. Because at the end of the day, one will come before this Court to face the full force of law.
    
17. Therefore, it is the intention of the Court that the message envisaged in this sentence must reverberate the same to our people and communities here in Malaita Province, that if they wish to embark the same route, then they will expect the same or much heftier punishments.
    

Starting point

18. Having considered the circumstance of the offending, the accused person’s criminal culpability and balancing with the aggravating factors and comparable cases, I see it appropriate to establish a starting point of 2 years imprisonment.
    
19. In case of R v Asuana^[7], His Lordship, Justice Ward (as he was then), when emphasizing the significance of payment compensation during sentencing, stated that;

It should always be remembered that compensation is an important means of restoring peace and harmony in the communities. Thus the courts should always give some credit for such payment and encourage it in an appropriate case. Thus, any custom compensation must be considered by the court in assessing sentence as a mitigating factor but it is limited in its value. The court must avoid attaching such weight to it that it appears to be a means of subsequently buying yourself out of trouble. The true value of such payments in terms of mitigation is that it may show genuine contrition and the scale of payment may give some indication of the degree of contrition (Emphasis added) ^[8].

20. I am reminded and further guided with the sentiments expounded in the above cited case, hence, any consideration or weight given to the payment of compensation and reconciliation must one that pivots on the above.
    

Sentencing Consideration

21. I reduce 25% (6 months) to consider his early guilty plea and genuine remorse. Further 3 months is given to his clean criminal history and 5 months provided for reconciliation, payment of compensation to the victim and submitting themselves to a priest for confession and redirection in life.
    
22. Consequently, a total of Fourteen (14) months is deducted to consider all the above mitigating factors.
    
23. For reason that a weapon was used, section 44 (2) of the Penal Code is clear, and I rule out any imposition of suspended sentence.
    

Sentence Order

24. I hereby sentence the accused person – Mr. Simon Omea to 10 months imprisonment.
25. Sentence to commence from date of first remand.
26. Right of appeal applies within 14 days.
27. Order accordingly.

THE COURT

-----------------------------------------------------
MR. LEONARD. B. CHITE
Principal Magistrate
Malaita District Magistrates Court

---

^[1] Cap 26
^[2] R v Korato [2019] SBMC 11; Criminal Case 4 of 2019 (20 February 2019), At Paragraph 5.
^[3] [2019] SBMC 11
^[4] [2018] SBMC
^[5] [2017] SBMC 32
^[6] [2017] SBHC
^[7] 1990] SBHC 106; [1990] SILR 201 (12 October 1990)
^[8] At paragraph 6 – 8 of the His Lordship’s judgment on appeal; [1990] SBHC 106; R v Asuana [1990] SILR 201 (12 October 1990)