Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Regina v Quana [1995] SBHC 34; HC-CRC 008 of 1995 (26 May 1995)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No: 8 of 1995

REGINA

V.

JAPHET QUANA

HIGH OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER J.)

Hearing: 26/5/95
Sentence: 26/5/95

PALMER J: The offence Accused has been charged with is classified as serious; carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years.

Each particular case however has to be scrutinised carefully by each count to determine the level of seriousness and appropriate penalty.

There has clearly been an unlawful action involved which has resulted in the grievious harm caused to the victim especially in the facial area, around the jaws. That unlawful action is inexcusable that is, that no excuse, especially on any customary basis, which can justify that unlawful action. In other words, it is wrong to justify the assault or any assault based in custom. I note that Mr. Titiulu has correctly sought not to try and justify the commission of the offence, but to focus powerfully on the circumstances surrounding the unlawful action.

To that extent I accept that there are powerful mitigating factors. To repeat them:

(1) The day the offence was committed was a sad day for the family, when members of the family out of respect for the deceased grandfather were supposed to be in mourning and not engaging in their selfish pursuits. In that sense the actions of the victim were quite foolish and disrespectful.

(2) That the “Accused” did witness a provoking scene with the partner of the victim; not only in seeking them sitting together, but then later, with the partner coming out to talk to them without any clothes on.

(3) That the act of kicking as described was not intended to be aimed at the face of the victim but at her thighs.

(4) That compensation has been paid - in particular land given and that this has been accepted by the victim.

(5) That the parties have been reconciled.

(6) I also note and accept that this does appear to be a one off situation. That it was done under thought - provoking circumstances and is not likely to be repeated.

I accept that the “Accused” is sorry for what he has done and has entered a guilty plea right from the beginning.

I also give credit that he is a man of previous good character.

So although I am satisfied that a sentence of imprisonment for 6 months is warranted, I am satisfied in all the circumstances above that it should be suspended in total for one year.

A. R. PALMER
JUDGE