R v Arunaala [2020] SBMC 10; Criminal Case 39 of 2020 (29 April 2020)

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

Criminal Case No. 39 of 2020

REGINA

-v-

RICHARD EVA ARUNAALA

Date of hearing: April 24^th, 2020
Date of sentence: April 29^th, 2020

Mr. Selwyn Vaike for the Prosecution
Mr. Oxley Limeniala for the Accused

SENTENCE

Introduction

1. On the 21^st of April 2020, the Accused person, Mr. Richard Eva Arunaala entered guilty plea to an offence of Arson contrary to section 319 (a) of the Penal Code (Cap. 26). He conceded to the facts surrounding the incident and admitted that he did it out of anger and resentment which stemmed from allegation of sorcery practices on the victim’s part. I have also formally recorded conviction against him.
   
2. The copy of photographs demonstrating the extent of burning and remains of the ferocious inferno were tendered to Court with consent of counsels. I must say that it is but excruciating to see it in pictorial state. It would be unfathomable to measure the trauma encountered by the victim and his family members on the date of offence.
   

Agreed Facts

3. Prior to the incident the Accused was accusing the victim for practicing sorcery that caused the death of his brother and aunt.
   
4. On the 23^rd March 2020 at about 3:00PM, the Accused went to the victim’s leaf house, set ablaze a dry coconut leaf and set fire to the roof of the house.
   
5. Straight after that, he proceeded further and put fire on an extension building close to the verandah of the victim’s permanent house. Fortunately, the verandah was partly burnt because one of the victim’s relative namely; Billy Nyson and her wife came and took out the fire. They were able to put out the fire by pouring buckets of water to the fire.
   
6. At the time of the offending the Accused was also armed with a bush knife. He was asking the whereabouts of the victim. Fortunately, the victim heard rumors of the Accused ill-intentions, so he escaped to another village.
   
7. He came and shouted at the top of his voice saying that anyone who wish to take out the fire supports the victim’s sorcery practice. He then proceeded to execute the offence. The completely scorched building and extension were made of bush materials.
   
8. The house that was completely burnt down has a kitchen, dwelling room and storage room. The Semi-permanent building’s extension was only partly burnt on its sago palm roof top.
   
9. The completely burnt building was the victim’s dwelling house and contained his personal belongings. The following properties were also scorched with the house; (i) Outboard Motor engine (ii) Chainsaw parts and tools (iii) Fishing gears, (iv) Clothes, (v) 2 x set pots (vi) A clothing tray (vii) 60 x cups and 40 cups (viii) Electric kettle (ix)2 x bush knives and 2 x set kitchen knives (x) 1 x axe (xi) A Mattress and other beddings (xii) 4 x buckets and set of containers (xiii) Set of clothe hanger and (xiv) A table.
   
10. The financial loss incurred according to the victim ranges between SBD$15,000 to SBD $20,000. This includes the cost of the burnt structures. The victim and his family were displaced for a while after the incident.
    

Aggravating factors

11. It is clear from the facts that the Accused sets fire to two buildings that belonged to the victim. A leaf dwelling house was completely scorched and a semi-permanent building’s extension was partly burnt on its roof. He did not terminate and take reasonable step to prevent further commission of offence when he set ablaze the extension structure.
    
12. He was armed with a knife when he committed the offence. This has caused threat and fear to the people who witness the offending. The victim had fled for his own safety.
    
13. The offence was pre-planned. The Accused agreed that he did the Arson out of a strong resentment and anger he held towards the victim. The Accused blamed the victim to have caused the death of his brother and Aunt with sorcery. This fueled him to commit this offence.
    
14. The total monetary loss costs around SBD$15,000 to SBD$20,000. The victim was left in a position of being displaced or homeless after the incident.
    

Case Authorities

15. In R –v- Bitana^[1], The Accused pleaded guilty to the charge of Arson. This is also in retaliation to a sorcery claim. He burnt down a house made of bush materials with an occupant inside the house. Fortunately, the occupant was assisted out of the building before it scorched to the ground. The Court sentenced him to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.
    
16. In R –v- Sasa^[2], the accused pleaded guilty to a charge of Arson. The facts are that the accused 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 Accused was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment, fully suspended for 2 years.
    
17. In the case of R –v- Tapalia^[3] The accused person entered guilty pleas on three (3) counts of Arson. The accused burned three (3) dwelling houses in early hours while it was still dark, one owned by his Mother in-law and other two owned by his brother in-laws. Victims had already left due to fear from threats made by the accused but personal belongings were inside the buildings. He did so because he was angry at them for damaging his food crops. The Court having assessed the totality of facts and factors imposed a sentence of 3 ½ years’ imprisonment for each count to be served concurrently.
    
18. In R –v- Junior^[4], the accused was charged with arson together with other offences. He went to victim’s house, started calling and yelling for him but he was away at another village. He made the victim’s wife scared and she escaped with her children. The accused then collected dry coconut leaves, set ablaze and place it on the walling of the house. The house was completely scorched to the ground, valued at $31,639.00. The court having considered all the pertinent factors imposed a 3 years’ imprisonment sentence.
    
19. As apparent, the sentencing tariff for offence of Arson ranges from 6 months’ suspended sentence to 4 years imprisonment.^[5]
    
20. This case falls similar to the matter of Bitana and Tapalia. Although it does not involve alcohol, there’s a dwelling house being scorched to the ground and a leaf house extension structure partly burnt on its roof top. There were no occupants in the building during the fire having fled for their own safety. The victim and his family were displaced after the incident.
    
21. In the case of R v Tapalia^[6] His Worship, Aulanga (Principal Magistrate) made the following sentiments at Paragraph 9 of his sentence when expressing the significance of a dwelling house:
    

“A man’s house whether it be made of thatched or modern materials represents his life and existence. So by destroying a man’s house is another way of destroying his life and existence”.

22. Accordingly, having considered the aggravating factors, circumstance of offending and total monetary loss and accused criminal mind to commit the offence, I see it appropriate to set the starting point at 4 ½ years’ imprisonment.
    

Mitigating factors

23. Besides entering a guilty plea; he is a youth at the age of 21 years during the date of offence and being remorseful in Court. He is a first offender with no previous conviction. The Court have also noted a reconciliation being conducted between the family of the Accused and family of victim in this matter. It is unclear whether the victim “Alick Roramae” attended to this reconciliation ceremony. The letter confirming reconciliation was instead signed by one Mrs. Anna Hetai and Accused Mother.
    
24. It is clear that the Accused has cooperated well with police during investigation and record of interview. He admitted to the offence and did it freely without any legal assistance or advice.
    

Prevalence of Arson charge

25. I can now safely conclude that Arson offences have recently taken a surge in our communities, the above cited case authorities^[7] and other unreported cases demonstrates its prevalent nature. It is somewhat concerning because some if not most, relates to claim of sorcery. The starting point I set has taken into account this aspect.
    

Sentencing Consideration

26. I deduct 14 months to give credit for his early guilty plea. It saves Courts time and demonstrates clear remorse on his part as well. It reduces costs on prosecutions part to call evidence which in turn allow the victim with his family to peacefully let go of the sad and devastating memories. I also deduct 6 months to consider his clean criminal history, corporation with police and youthfulness. He must accept full consequence of what this offence did to him and must make amends to himself when he is released from custody.
    
27. For reason that this matter emanates from dispute of claim of sorcery between parties in a village setting, I partly accept the reconciliation to assist his mitigation. It adds to lessen the tense situation between families of both parties and avoidance of further row. The part of it is reserved because he did not attend and the victim was not present and did not sign the reconciliation letter as well. Therefore, I reduce 4 months to consider reconciliation.
    
28. The resulting sentence is therefore, 2 years 6 months imprisonment.
    
29. This sentence encapsulate the need for our communities to revert to peaceful and amicable dispute resolutions and to never take the law into one’s own hands. It is to equally send a clear message to the public that those who commit arson in similar circumstance will expect to be journey bound to this Court and to the Correctional Center.
    

Sentence remarks

30. This is a charge which holds the heftiest maximum prescribed punishment of life imprisonment. The life imprisonment term under our Penal Code exemplifies the seriousness of this offence and how our legislators have despise and hates such offence and those who wish to perform it in our communities. It is also trite law that this life imprisonment term is reserved for the worst type of Arson offence and that unlike Murder and treason it is not mandatory. Thus, the need to balance each case as they come and to assess them based on their own facts and merits.
    
31. I do not wish to accept that the act of Arson was provoked by the victim’s alleged sorcery. This contention is far too remote and must be proven with evidence before a Court, unless that is done the Accused cannot lean under the umbrella of ‘Provocation’ to mitigate this offence or explain his reason for burning these buildings.
    
32. It is obvious that the Accused motive or suspicion that the victim practices sorcery holds no weight and is never an excuse to what he has done. He has channeled his sorcery beliefs and bitterness towards the victim on the wrong course by taking the law into his own hands.
    
33. There are of course many lawful, appropriate and peaceful means to settle such sorcery allegation in our communities, some of which are; To bring such matter before Chiefs, elders and Church leaders, or to refer the matter to our Royal Solomon Islands Police Force so they can ensue a criminal investigation into the matter and if need be, charge the person for sorcery under section 190 of the Penal Code. These are two most available paths the Accused should have taken. These two stated options are by no means exhaustive.
    
34. I am also reminded that he is a young offender and still travelling in this imperfect life we live in today. He has permitted his emotional and psychological troubles to out-power his good self when he gave in to his witchcraft beliefs to cloud his right mind. Of course, this case is a lesson for him and there is always room for change and repentance. We are only human and learn on mistakes as we grow in this life.
    

Sentence Orders

1. I hereby sentence the accused Mr. Richard Eva Arunaala to 2 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment.
2. 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

Malaita District Magistrates Court

---

^[1] Criminal Case No. 100 of 2019
^[2] [2019] SBMC 5
^[3] [2017] SBMC 29
^[4] [2016] SBMC 23
^[5] Ibid 1
^[6] Ibid 3
^[7] Regina –v- Sovesuia [2015] SBHC 117; Regina –v- Junior [2016] SBMC 23; Regina –v- Tapalia [2017] SBMC 29; Regina v Rere [2017] SBMC 48; Regina v Feman [2018] SBMC 11; Regina –v- Sasa [2019] SBMC 5; Regina –v- Faiga Criminal Case 21 of 2020; Regina –v- Bitana Criminal Case No. 100 of 2019;