R v Siru [2020] SBMC 11; Criminal Case 6 of 2020 (4 May 2020)

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

Criminal Case No. 06 of 2020

REGINA

-v-

JOSHUA SIRU

Date of Plea: April 24^th, 2020
Date of hearing: April 29^th, 2020
Date of sentence: May 4^th, 2020

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

SENTENCE

Introduction

1. Mr. Joshua Siru (“Accused”) entered an unequivocal guilty plea to the charge of Intimidation contrary to section 231 (1) of the Penal Code (Cap. 26). He agreed to the facts surrounding the offending through his counsel, hence, the dispensing of the verbal reading of facts.
   
2. I had also recorded his conviction on his own plea and deferred the matter to today so I can deliberate on his sentence. This is my reasoning for his sentence.
   

Agreed Facts

3. On the 3^rd of February 2020 at about 10:00AM, the victim and the Accused were present at their house, the Accused then told the victim to go to Melody Tahira to trade his 26 inch bush knife for 5 rolls of locally made tobacco, commonly known as ‘Savusavu’. The victim told the Accused that she didn’t want to go, as a result the Accused got angry and without hesitation he lifted it in his right hand and swung it to the direction where the victim was. The knife landed on the flowers between him and the victim.
4. The victim was shocked and afraid, she escaped and did not return to their house until the Accused was arrested by the Police. The victim is related to the Accused as her uncle.
   

Pertinent theme

5. This is a sad case of intimidation by the Accused on the victim in a domineering and violent manner. He has allowed his craving for savusavu to affect his clear state of mind and thereby caused fear to the innocent victim who is his own niece with his outrageous action.
   

Aggravating Features

6. From facts I can gather the following as aggravating factors. First, the use of weapon to threaten the victim. The use of a 26 inch bush knife to gesticulate it towards the victim is serious because it posed direct and imminent threat to life on the victim. Second, the victim is his own niece who is clearly a weaker person, he has used his strength and masculinity in a domineering and violent manner. Finally, this is an unprovoked act on the innocent victim who merely refused to accept the imprudent approach prearranged by the Accused.
   

Case Authorities

7. I must acknowledged both Counsel Vaike and Counsel Limeniala for the cited case authorities. It has assisted the Court to identify the sentence range and setting the appropriate starting point.
   
8. In R v Gora^[1] the Accused threatened his sister and husband with a large knife. The facts had shown that the Accused sister reacted in fear when the Accused threatened her. The Court sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment amongst other offences.
   
9. In the case of Kitatu v R^[2] the Accused pleaded guilty to one count of intimidating a taxi driver and other offences. He was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court and the sentenced remained unaltered. No weapon was used, he was not intoxicated and a first offender.
   
10. In R v Ramosala^[3]the Accused who was drunk intimidated his Father and Mother after they refused to give him money. He threated his Father with an iron rod which fortunately his father missed it after being thrown at him. He was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment for that intimidating charge among other offences.
    
11. In R v Keho^[4], The Accused who was drunk armed with a knife intimidated his aunty inside a kai bar restaurant at Rove. There was no element of pre-planning involved for this offence. He was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment beside his other charges.
    
12. In the matter of R v Tapata^[5], the Accused entered the camp with a group of men and started throwing rocks at building and machines. At that point in time, he had with him an iron rod which he picked up at the campsite. Feared for their lives, the victims and most of the employees fled into the bushes 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 Court imposed 4 months imprisonment on the intimidation charge.
    
13. In R v Goro^[6], the Accused demanded $500 from Janet. He was seen holding a short bush knife when he demanded Janet for the money. She was afraid of him so she escaped out of the house. Moreover, the Accused ordered the complainant to go and look for her husband. She complied and return to inform him that her husband had gone somewhere. The Accused got furious and started kicking the house and threw sticks and stone on the house. This made another victim; Maria and her children afraid and in trauma, so she escaped out of the house with her children. The Accused thereafter went closer to the house and pulled down the veranda and the walling. The Court sentenced him to 7 months imprisonment apart from his other offences.
    
14. Having outlined the above case authorities, it is impeccable to state that the tariff for the offence of intimidation, ranges from bound over, fines and 8 months to 2 years’ imprisonment depending on gravity of fear perpetrated, its proximity and apparent aggravating factors.
    
15. I am reminded that for reason a weapon was used in executing the offence, I rule out any suspended sentence as it is the position of our law under section 44 (2) of the Penal Code (Cap. 26).
    

Starting Point

16. Having assessed the facts, aggravating factors and the gravity of fear faced by the victim plus the assistance of the cited cases, it is my respectful view that the proper starting point must be one of 16 months’ imprisonment.
    

Mitigating Features

17. The Accused has entered an early guilty plea to the offence which has obviously saves time and money if it was to go to trial. He must be afforded with the maximum percentage discount available in the case of R v Qoloni^[7]. Since his past conviction was in 1998 (22 years ago) I shall consider him as a first offender^[8]. He has cooperated well with the police during investigation which has resulted in the early completion of his intimidation charge.
    

Sentencing consideration

18. I give credit to his early guilty plea, hence, reduce 25% or 4 months accordingly. He has demonstrated genuine remorse on his part. I further deduct 4 months to consider his past adherence to the law and corporation with the police during investigation. In total, 8 months is deducted. The resulting sentence is therefore 8 months’ imprisonment.
    

Sentence remarks

19. The Holy Book (Bible) has put it in a very clear and eloquent way when it states in Matthew 7:12 (NIV), “So in everything, do to others what you want them to do to you, for this sums up the law and the prophets”. Mistreatment or using strength and masculinity to demean and over-power weaker individuals is not only wrong but demonstrate people who are lazy and self-centered. We must render total respect and love to others if it is what we want or expect them to do to us.
    
20. The Accused must use this case to reassess his conduct and to make constructive and positive change in his life. It is so unfortunate the he used violence against frustration on ‘Savusavu’, this is simply unnecessary.
    
21. He should never have allowed his temper to outstrip his self-control and calmness. It is a need that we avoid turning to violence, because violence involving weapon will only make things worse or go off course. There is no better feeling than conducting oneself in a peaceful and prudent manner.
    
22. I do agree that he did not planned this act but one that was done spontaneously out of his craving and frustration over ‘savusavu’. He must also understand the extent that savusavu has done to him and possibly make amends accordingly.
    

Sentence Orders

1. Upon considering what I have discussed earlier in this sentence I make the following orders:-
   • 1.1. I hereby sentence the accused Mr. Joshua Siru to 8 months’ imprisonment.
   • 1.2. Sentence to commence from date of first remand.
   • 1.3. Right of appeal applies within 14 days.
   • 1.4. Order accordingly.
     

THE COURT

....................................................

MR. LEONARD. B. CHITE

Principal Magistrate

Malaita District Magistrates Court

---

^[1] [2016] SBMC 18
^[2] [2005] SBHC 118; HCSI-CAC 206 of 2004
^[3] Criminal Case No. 1297 of 2015 & 27 of 2016
^[4] Criminal Case No. 657 of 2015
^[5] [2019] SBMC 24
^[6] [2017] SBMC 24
^[7] HCSI-CRC 76 of 2005
^[8] See Regina v Sukina [1998] SBHC 60; HC-CRC 031 of 1995 (27 August 1998)