Regina v Lifoia [2020] SBMC 4; Criminal Case 82 of 2018 (18 February 2020)

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

Criminal Case No. 82 of 2018

REGINA

-v-

ALEX LIFOIA

Date of hearing: February, 14^th, 2020
Date of sentence: February 18^th, 2020

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

SENTENCE

Introduction

1. Mr. Alex Lifoia (“Accused”) was initially charged together with Mr. Robert Lifoia, before arraignment their charges were detached and the Accused proceeded and entered a guilty plea to the charge of Assault on Police Officer contrary to section 190 of the Police Act^[1]. Conviction is formally registered against the accused on his own guilty plea. The matter return today for this Court to deliberate on the appropriate sentence for the accused.
   

Agreed facts

2. On 16^th of June 2018, at around 11:00am, Sgt. Lani approached three (3) individuals; Mr. Anthony Lifoia and his two sons namely; Robert Lifoia and Alex Lifoia, after which he saw them arguing in front of Fred Fono’s Building.
   
3. Sgt. Lani approached them and tried to speak with them with a view to take things under control and to sort out their issues amicably without resort to violence. Whilst in the course of doing this, the accused – Alex Lifoia, sneaked on Sgt. Lani and landed a closed fist punch on his eye lid area. As a result Sgt. Lani sustained laceration causing blood to ooze out from the sustained laceration covering his face and body.
4. He was identified being aggressive by Police Officers who witnessed the incident. Fortunately, the other Police Officers manage to calm the situation and took the accused person to Auki Police station where he was formally arrested and charged for the said offence.
   

Pertinent theme

5. This is a clear outright act of disobedience, disrespect and no-care attitude towards the law enforcement agency in our country. Whether it emanates from lack of proper teaching or close mindedness on his part to acknowledge proper teaching and manners, such illegal act of assault on a police officer will never be condoned or tolerated by this Court.
   

Aggravating factors

6. I took into account the following features as aggravating in his case:
   1. Intoxicated during the date of offence – From the agreed facts, I can gather that this offence is very much alcohol being the catalyst. He now receives the consequence for his illegal action, but this feature aggravates the offending for the simple reason that he has voluntarily allow alcohol to control his own good self. As always highlighted in other cases involving alcohol, the Court has express the view in the case of R v Oma^[2] that those who consumed alcohol to commit an offence must accept full consequence and should not expect leniency from the Courts.
      
   2. Closed fist punch on Sgt. Lani’s eye lid – This is careful and cowardice attack on a police officer’s facial area with the use of a closed fist. It was fortunate that he did not suffer any permanent injury, had it the case, then the accused would have been charged for a more serious offence. This is a vulnerable part of a human body.
      
   100. Deliberate disregard to the law enforcement agency of this country – The accused person saw Sgt. Lani in Police Uniform and was with other police officers, yet he saw it fit to ensued and execute the offence. I cannot stress this enough or explain it more clearly, ‘no one should ever do such a criminal act against a sworn officer of the law’. This is a blatant disregard to the law enforcement agency of this nation.
        

Scale of Criminal Culpability

7. The fact that the accused person sneaked without the victim’s notice or knowledge to punch him on his eye lid describes his criminal mind. This is a careful and cowardice assault on a keeper of the law. I placed his criminal culpability in between the mid and upper range of the offence.
   

Extent of injury

8. The victim sustained a laceration on his eye lid and was bleeding. He had to seek medical attention. No evidence of stitch on the injured area, however, I do acknowledge that it was a grim blow on the victim’s eye lid.
   

Case authorities

9. While I acknowledge counsel Limeniala for assisting the Court with cited case authorities, I must say that they are distinguishable on their own facts and merits. For the case of Regina v Menime^[3] is a bit less serious compared to the case at hand. The accused; Mr. Menime was struggling to free himself from being handcuffed when he kicked the police officer (victim) in frustration. There were no evidence as to where the kick landed or the extent of the kick as well. In this case, the accused deliberately sneaked and punched the victim on his eye lid when he did not expect it. The victim suffered laceration and bleeding on the injured area.
   
10. For the case of Regina v Kabui^[4] there was no clear evidence on the assault on police officer charge. The case at hand is quite serious compared to that of Kabui.
    
11. I do accept the sentiments shared by His Lordship Palmer CJ, in the case of R v Fa’afunua^[5] that police officers are representatives of the state in the administration of the rule of law and should be respected when they arrive at any scene of crime. He further made it clear that an immediate custodial sentence must be expected when any police officer is attacked.
    

Maximum prescribed punishment

12. The maximum prescribed punishment for offence of Assault on Police Officer in execution of his or her duties under our Police Act 2013, is 50,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both. The intention of our law-makers is clear, in that those who commit such an offence will expect weighty punishment. Obviously the penalty has been doubled from what was used to be under the old provision.
    
13. Although having stated the above, I must reemphasize the sentencing maxim that cases are considered separately according to their own unique set of facts and that courts are guided with evidence to gauge the direction in pitching the appropriate starting point.
    

Starting point

14. Having taken into account the facts, aggravating factors, accused criminal culpability, I see it appropriate to set the starting point at 18 months’ imprisonment.
    

Mitigating factors

15. I took into account the following as mitigating features for the accused:
    1. Early Guilty Plea and Remorsefulness – The accused has entered an early guilty to the charge against him. He accepted the facts and has owned up to his wrongdoings. I acknowledge his plea to demonstrate genuine remorse on his part, his appearance in Court depicts the same.
    2. First Offender – He is a first offender, being an 18 year old teenager during the time of offence.
    100. Youthfulness – The accused person is a 20 years old young man and currently doing his Form 6 at Aligegeo Secondary School.
         

Sentence remarks

16. The accused person must now accept that alcohol is not compatible with him. He should now put a complete stop to it for his own good and betterment of his future careers or ambitions. As I normally averred in other cases, the negative impacts of consuming alcohol outweighs any temporary pleasures or benefits attached to it.
    
17. He must now embed holistic, respect and humbleness in the way he carry himself today and onwards. Teenagers, adults, students and working people receive admiration and accolade from these attributes. One can only go down the path of close mindedness when he lack these attributes, hence, he must now incorporate the above stated qualities and strive to live a peaceful and harmonious living for the betterment of his own future.
    
18. As a young person, he must also acknowledge that blessing flows from obeying our parents and elders in our communities. He must learn to understand this and endeavor to achieve his future aims.
    
19. Furthermore, the accused person must move away from bad peers who can possibly influence him to give in to violence and alcohol, because these things do not work together with schooling nor form part of Form 6 Syllabus, hence, he must take it seriously to cut lose on bad friends, alcohol and violence.
    
20. This Court made the similar remarks towards offence against Police Officer in the case of Menime, which I see it equally important to reecho in this case;
    

“We the people of Solomon Islands including the foreigners and visitors are all safe and pleased because of the tireless efforts and sacrifices done by our Royal Solomon Islands Police Officers. They have placed their lives on the line for us to go to bed at night and go about our businesses during daytime knowing full well that we are protected from any intruders who might wish to invade our homes, properties and businesses. Our country’s trust and faith against possible attacks from terrorists or suicide bombers and other illegal radicals are in their hands. Therefore, it is only incumbent on all of us to render total respect and honour to them as well as never to turn against them.”^[6]

Sentencing consideration

21. I reduce 25% or 5 months to consider his early guilty plea and remorsefulness. I further deduct 3 months to consider his past clean criminal history and his cooperation with police during his arrest. I further reduce a month to consider reconciliation and payment of $150 compensation towards the victim in this case. Therefore, the resulting sentence is 9 months imprisonment.
    

Suspended sentence

22. I fully understand that he is a youth and currently a student. A letter from Principal of Aligegeo Secondary School confirms that the accused person is officially placed in Form 6 at their school.
    
23. I stand back and asked these important questions: (i) Must I send him to prison today for what he did in 2018? (ii) What would be the possible ramification if I send him to prison? (iii) Is this offence so serious that it warrants an immediate custodial term (iv) Are there other possible sentencing methods to achieve the best possible outcome for interest of justice, the victim and the accused person?
    
24. I would like to think that attaining a space in Form 6 level is a huge achievement for any person and an opportunity that does not come easily but through hard work and determination. He is a young person with a lot to learn and explore in life, there is a bright future ahead of him.
    
25. If I send him to prison today, he will have to abandon his Form 6 studies and possibility of entering the same level when he returns from custody is uncertain. This will surely cripple his prospective future goals.
    
26. He has begged this Court through his lawyer for a second chance to allow him to further his education. He turned up today in Court after attending his morning classes. I do accept that his plea to continue his studies is a genuine one.
    
27. I cannot easily turn a blind eye or shy away from the accused piercing plea. The damage it will cause to the accused person if I send him to prison will be enormous and might possibly add to creating a repeated offender in the future.
    
28. While I fully accept that the Courts as the institution to punish offenders for their wrongs must remain firm to pass strong message to offenders in such cases, each cases are assessed on their individual merits. In this case, the victim had been fully recovered and reconciled with the accused person.
    
29. Though I acknowledge that a deterrent sentence is warranted in such a case, I am also reminded that rehabilitation and restorative sentencing method should walk parallel with it, so as to avoid any crushing effect and to maintain the paramount consideration, for him to learn from his mistake and not to return to this Court in the future. More importantly, a sentence that will allow him to be a better person for his own good and for the good of this nation.
    
30. For this above reason, I invoke section 44 (1) (a) of the Penal Code to suspend the 9 months wholly on condition that he must no recommit or commit any further offence within 2 years from today.
    

Sentence Orders:

1. I hereby sentence the accused person – Alex Lifoia to 9 months imprisonment.
   
2. Invoke section 44 (1) (a) of the Penal Code and suspend the 9 months imprisonment wholly for 2 years, on condition that the accused must not commit any further offence during the term suspended. Breach of this condition will warrant reinstatement should he be found guilty on the subsequent charge.
   
3. Right of appeal applies within 14 days.
4. Order accordingly.
   

THE COURT

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

---

^[1] 2013
^[2] HCSI-CRC 1440 of 2010
^[3] [2019] SBMC 20
^[4] Unreported case
^[5] [2004] SBHC 131
^[6] At paragraph 19 of the Sentence; Regina v Menime [2019] SBMC 20