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

Regina v Ome [2011] SBHC 109; HCSI-CRC 265 of 2006 (1 June 2011)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)
Criminal Case Number 265 of 2006

REGINA

V.

JOHN OME AND DAVID SUITI

HEARING: 27 May 2011
SENTENCE: 1 June 2011

J. Naigulevu and J. Seuika for the Crown
L. McSpedden and S. Kalu for John Ome
R. Tovosia for David Suiti

Palmer CJ.:

You have been convicted each of five offences: (i) for arson; (ii) discharging firearms in a public place; (iii) going armed in public; (iv) possession of firearms without firearms licence; and Intimidation. David Suiti has been convicted separately of the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. I do not need to recount the facts and circumstances which have given rise to those offences. They have been recounted many times at trial and noted in the judgment of this court[1].

I give credit for the fact that you have no previous convictions. I take note of your personal circumstances that have been highlighted in the submissions of mitigation by your lawyers.

In the case of David Suiti, I note there is evidence of remorse and contrition by his guilty pleas to all the offences, save arson. I give credit for that and will reflect that in the sentence I will impose.

The offences occurred during a dark chapter in the history of this country. You took advantage of the times and used the name of the Malaita Eagles Force because you were members of it and had access to weapons to carry out those offences. The use of weapons is an aggravating factor.

There was premeditation and planning in the commission of the offences. They emanated from a long standing land dispute that the Luina family had with the Kirite'e family and you became involved through your close ties with the Luina family. There were earlier threats that had been issued and at least an earlier incident between the families, although you were not involved. Your intentions and actions that day were executed with vengeance and deliberation. It was fortunate, that none of the other family members of the Kirite'e family, apart from the injury suffered by Fangidua Kirite'e, suffered any physical harm or injury that day, although the psychological and emotional trauma that may have been caused cannot be measured and the scars imprinted in their hearts and minds.

The offences were committed in a group which is an aggravating factor as well.

The loss suffered by the Kirite'e family is substantial involving loss of dwelling houses, a shop, machinery, and tools and livestock. They had lost their entire life's savings, hard work and sweat. There is little prospects of restitution. I would have considered a compensation order if I knew you had means to do that, or had property which could be seized and sold to compensate them in some way. You will have this issue however, hanging over your heads for sometimes. Fangidua Kirite'e may consider taking civil action against you and the others who were with you, to recover his losses, but that is a matter which he will have to consider, whether worth pursuing or not. I do note though, that at the time of the arson, the village had been vacated, having been warned earlier and so there was no danger to life other than loss to property. That reduces the seriousness of the offence somewhat.

The major mitigating factor in this case is the effluxion of time since the commission of the offences. Substantial credit will have to be given for that.

I also take into account the totality principle in the appropriate sentence to be imposed in this case.

The offence of arson carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. I would have considered a minimum sentence of 7 years alone for the arson in this case. Giving credit for the delay, no previous convictions and that there was no danger to life, I am satisfied a sentence of four years should be imposed.

The offence of discharging firearms in a public place carries a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment or fine of $200.00. I am satisfied the circumstances of the offence warrant the maximum sentence of six months imprisonment.

The offence of going armed in public carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. I am satisfied a sentence of one year should be imposed in the circumstances of this case.

The offence of possession of firearms without a licence is a serious offence with a maximum of five years imprisonment or fine of $3,000.00. I am satisfied a sentence of three years should be imposed in the circumstances of this case. The firearms used were high powered rifles. Hopefully this type of weapons will never surface again other than for use by those authorized and trained to handle them. Their availability was a result of the lawlessness that had gripped the country at that time.

The offence of intimidation carries a maximum sentence of three years. I am satisfied a sentence of two years should be imposed in this case. The trauma which Fangidua Kirite'e had to live with as a result of the intimidation that he suffered that day will remain with him a long time. This was evident when he was giving evidence and broke down at one stage when recounting what happened to him that day. The events remained quite fresh and vivid in his mind even after ten years.

The offence of assault occasioning bodily harm carries a maximum sentence of five years. Fangidua Kirite'e sustained a fracture to his rib as a result of having been hit with the butt of a rifle. I note he has recovered from this injury and no further complication has arisen. Taking all the mitigating factors into account I am satisfied a sentence of 12 months should be imposed.

I note that in John Ome's case, he was taken into remand on two separate occasions. The first one was from 14 July 2004 to 10 May 2007, a period 34 months and 10 days. The second remand period was from 29 January 2009 to 11 December 2009, a period of 10 months and 13 days. He has served a substantial period of pre-trial custody of 44 months and 23 days and this should be taken into account.

I note since his release on bail he has not been involved in any other unlawful activities and has sought to engage in useful, meaningful and productive activity. I take that into account.

John Ome is sentenced as follows:

1. 4 years for arson contrary to section 319(a) of the Penal Code;
   
2. 6 months for discharging firearms in a public place contrary to section 44 of the Firearms and Ammunitions Act (cap. 80), to be served concurrently;
   
3. 1 year for going armed in public contrary to section 83 of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served consecutively;
   
4. 3 years for possession of firearms without firearms licence contrary to section 5(2) of the Firearms and Ammunition Act (cap. 80), to be served concurrently; and
   
5. 2 years for intimidation contrary to section 231(2) of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served concurrently.
   

The total sentence imposed upon John Ome is five years.

David Suiti also served an earlier period of remand from 17 October 2005 to 26 June 2006, a period of 8 months and 12 days. He was re-arrested on 24 November 2009 and has been in remand since to the current time, a period of 18 months 7 days. This means he has been in custody for a period of 26 months and 19 days. This is to be taken into account in his overall sentence.

David Suiti is sentenced as follows:

1. 4 years for arson contrary to section 319(a) of the Penal Code;
   
2. 6 months for discharging firearms in a public place contrary to section 44 of the Firearms and Ammunitions Act (cap. 80), to be served concurrently;
   
3. 1 year for going armed in public contrary to section 83 of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served concurrently;
   
4. 3 years for possession of firearms without firearms licence contrary to section 5(2) of the Firearms and Ammunition Act (cap. 80), to be served concurrently;
   
5. 2 years for intimidation contrary to section 231(2) of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served concurrently; and
   
6. 1 year for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm contrary to section 245 of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served concurrently.
   

The total sentence imposed upon David Suiti is 4 years.

Orders of the Court:

1. Impose sentence on John Ome as follows:
   
   1. 4 years imprisonment for arson contrary to section 319(a) of the Penal Code;
      
   2. 6 months imprisonment for discharging firearms in a public place contrary to section 44 of the Firearms and Ammunitions Act (cap. 80), to be served concurrently;
      
   3. 1 year imprisonment for going armed in public contrary to section 83 of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served consecutively;
      
   4. 3 years imprisonment for possession of firearms without firearms licence contrary to section 5(2) of the Firearms and Ammunition Act (cap. 80), to be served concurrently; and
      
   5. 2 years imprisonment for intimidation contrary to section 231(2) of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served concurrently.
      
   6. The total period of imprisonment imposed is five years.
      
   7. The period of 44 months and 23 days spent in custody to be taken into account.
      
2. Impose sentence of imprisonment on David Suiti as follows:
   
   1. 4 years for arson contrary to section 319(a) of the Penal Code;
   2. 6 months for discharging firearms in a public place contrary to section 44 of the Firearms and Ammunitions Act (cap. 80), to be served concurrently;
   3. 1 year for going armed in public contrary to section 83 of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served concurrently;
   4. 3 years for possession of firearms without firearms licence contrary to section 5(2) of the Firearms and Ammunition Act (cap. 80), to be served concurrently;
   5. 2 years for intimidation contrary to section 231(2) of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served concurrently; and
   6. 1 year for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm contrary to section 245 of the Penal Code (cap. 26), to be served concurrently.
   7. The total period of imprisonment imposed is four years.
   8. The period of 26 months and 19 days is to be taken into account.
      

The Court.

^[1] REGINA -V- JOHN OME AND DAVID SUITI, HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS, CRC No.265 of 2006, 6 May 2011