Regina v Sulu [2020] SBMC 3; Criminal Case 8 of 2019 (6 February 2020)

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

Criminal Case No. 08 of 2019

REGINA

-v-

RICHARD SULU

Date of hearing: February, 3^rd, 2020
Date of sentence: February 6^th, 2020

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

SENTENCE

Introduction

1. The accused person has been arraigned on the 3^rd of February 2020, and entered guilty pleas to the two counts of Domestic violence contrary to section 58 (1) as read with section 4 of the Family Protection Act^[1] against him. I had entered conviction on his guilty pleas and withhold the reasoning for today, I now uncover the reasoning and the justified final sentence for his case.
   
2. The agreed facts disclose that on the 26^th of January, 2019, at about 8:00pm at the accused person family home, Maoro village, Central Kwara’ae. The accused person was fully intoxicated when he got home.
   
3. The accused ordered his wife to give him a torch. While she was in the course of handing over the torch, the accused slapped her on her face with his right hand. He then proceeded and landed a closed left hand fist behind the victim’s head, which as a result she fell on the floor with dizziness and bleeding nose.
   
4. On the 3^rd of February, 2019 at about 2:00pm, the accused got home drunk again and approached the victim who is his wife. He moved forward and with his right hand open palm, slapped the victim on her forehead.
   
5. The victim then escaped and went to Auki Police and reported the matter. A police investigation ensued and the accused was arrested and charged for the offence of Domestic Violence.
   
6. The offence of Domestic violence is a hated and non-tolerated act in our country today, there are tons of public awareness through women advocates, social media, local and national TV news and even case precedents before this Court which echoes the same sentiments against domestic violence.
   
7. In Regina v Lomulo^[2], this Court stated the following to express the matters which gave rise to the existence of Family Protection Act^[3];
   

The Family Protection Act 2014, is a relatively new act which comes into existence after huge exclamation from women advocates, peaceful protests by activists and public outcry to end violence against women and for equal rights to be rendered to both genders and or by each partner. It mirrors the United Nation Convention on Elimination of Violence against Women (EVAW), to fight against the prevalent act of violence and assault against women and children in a domestic type setting or family homes.^[4]

8. The Family Protection Act section 58 (1) sanctioned a maximum penalty of $30,000 penalty units or 3 years imprisonment or both such fine and imprisonment. This on its face alone reflects the seriousness of our law-makers to abhor such an offending from happening within our communities, especially when it involves married couple.
   
9. There are case authorities^[5] which this Court have made it plain and clear the sentencing range and the usual sentencing approach in cases involving married couples. I acknowledge that cases are determined on their own unique set of facts and circumstances.
   
10. I find the following to be the aggravating factors in his case:
    
    1. Intoxicated during the commission of offence – the Accused was drunk or intoxicated during both occasions when he assaulted the victim. In R v Oma^[6], the court express the view that those who take alcohol to commit an offence must accept the consequences that stems out from it and expect no leniency from the Court.
       
    2. Unprovoked Act – This is obviously an unprovoked act in its entirety. There is nothing to suggest that the victim provoked the accused person to trigger his temper into doing what he did to her, he has acted out of his foolishness.
       
    100. Wife of the accused person and vulnerable person – The victim in this case is the wife of the accused and a vulnerable person in our society. Being the husband and Father to the Children, the accused person should have render total respect, care and love to his wife, who is his life partner and someone that holds a special place in their Children’s life. The victim is a female who is physically weaker compared to the accused person, hence, the used of slap and punched on the date of incidents is of course, wide off the mark or disproportionate. He has breached his trust as a husband to the victim and Father to the Children.
         

Possible Causes of the Domestic Dispute

11. The evidence and undisputed facts do not reveal the reason behind this continued assault on the innocent victim (wife) by the accused person. However, I must say that it is the duty of this Court to identify such causes and address it where possible so that the accused person can learn to harness it or to put a total stop to it, hence, Prosecutors and Counsels should obtain instructions and evidences to assist the Court. The paramount consideration is for the accused to understand his mistakes, learn from it and to never return to Court again. Moreover, so that he can build himself to be a better Father and Husband than yesterday.
    

Wife is not a mere object

12. Wife is not a mere object that the accused person can put out his anger and resentment on when he is frustrated over other external matters. She should be treated with respect for being the right rib or person so close and dear to the accused.
    
13. The Holy Bible, Customary practices and our domestic and international laws does not in any way give right to a Husband to assault a wife, as such, it is incumbent on accused to turn away from such bad and ill-mannered attitude of assaulting his wife. The Family Protection Act, has now provide a weighty sentence and it is the function of this Court to implement the same and not to always shy away from it into succumbing more on other factors which might buy out the accused from his illegal actions suffered silently by the victim.
    

Starting Point

14. Having assessed this case, the nature of offending, the aggravating factors and the accused level of culpability, it is my view appropriate to set a starting point as follows:
    1. Count 1 – 12 months’ imprisonment.
    2. Count 2 – 6 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 18 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% (5 months) from the starting point as reflected in case of Qoloni. I further reduce 4 months to consider his past clean criminal history and other mitigating factors.
    
17. In total, 9 months is accordingly deducted from the head sentence of 18 months.
    

Sentencing principle

18. 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 is 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.
    

Part suspension of sentence

19. For reason that this is an offence which stems from domestic type setting and that there was no weapon used, coupled with the fact that he have children who are dependent on him and no medical report to justify the extent of the injuries on the victim, I see it appropriate to partly suspend 3 months’ from the remaining 9 month’s imprisonment for 2 years. On condition that he must not commit any further offence during the term suspended, breach of this condition will warrant reinstatement of the term suspended.

Sentence Orders:

1. I hereby sentence the accused person; Mr Richard Sulu, to – 6 months’ imprisonment.
2. Sentence to commence from this day.
3. I order the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF) to assist in transporting the two children to their Mother for purposes of care and custody.
4. 14 days right of appeal applies.
5. Order accordingly.
   

THE COURT

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

---

^[1] 2014
^[2] Regina v Lomulo [2019] SBMC 19;
^[3] 2014
^[4] At paragraph 9 of the Court’s Sentence in Regina v Lomulo [2019] SBMC 19;
^[5] Regina v Ramai [2019] SBMC 33; Regina v Lomulo [2019] SBMC 19; Regina v Ninamu [2019] SBMC 31
^[6] HCSI-CRC 1440 of 2010