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

Regina v Tuzi [2012] SBHC 124; HCSI-CRC 266 of 2012 (17 October 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(APANIAI, J)
Criminal Jurisdiction

REGINA

-v-

KAYHAN TUZI

Dates of Hearing: 10th October 2012.
Date of Judgment: 17th October 2012.

Ms. Olutimayin for the Crown.
Mr. Aupai for the accused.

SENTENCE

1. Mr. Kayhan Tuzi, you have pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Stephanie Taranga ("victim").
   
2. The facts of the case are that you first met the victim in September 2011.
   
3. It is obvious that you went crazy for her at first sight because, as the facts indicate, you began visiting her at home and you were even taking food for her while she was at the Nursing school as a second year student.
   
4. Unfortunately, she was not interested in you and you knew it. Clearly, you were not happy that she had rejected your advances. I am satisfied that was the reason why you have decided to attack her on the 28th July 2011 at the National Referral Hospital compound.
   
5. You waited for her at the hospital compound and you stabbed her at the upper abdomen just below the right chest with a sharp and dangerous 36 centimeter-long metal rod (exhibit "P1"). The metal part of the rod was 28 centimeters long and 19 centimeters of that rod went into her body.
   
6. According to the medical report (exhibit "P2"), the metal rod had missed a major blood vessel by only a few centimeters. Had the rod pierced that major blood vessel, there was a very high chance that the victim would have died.
   
7. For the victim, it was a very scary and painful moment. Had it not been for the prompt action of the hospital doctors in removing the iron rod and giving her urgent medical attention, she would not have been alive today.
   
8. According to the medical report, she was admitted into the National Referral Hospital where she spent 7 days before being discharged. She had missed her classes and it is likely she will have some permanent scars and runs the risk of other future medical complications.
   
9. I am satisfied this was not a spur-of-the-moment incident. It was premeditated as shown by your record of interview (exhibit "P3").
   
10. These are aggravating factors which have made this case a very serious one.
    
11. However, I have taken into account the mitigating factors raised on your behalf by your lawyer.
    
12. First, you are a first offender and therefore you are entitled to some leniency.
    
13. Second, you are a very young man (26 years of age) with a good prospect of rehabilitation. This is a very strong mitigating factor and from the point of view of the law, it is not proper that you should waste your young life away in prison. You should be given an opportunity to re-unite with your family and re-establish yourself back into the community.
    
14. Third, you have pleaded guilty to the charge at first opportunity. In doing so, you have indicated to the court that you are remorseful and, in addition, you have also saved time and resources.
    
15. Fourth, you have paid compensation to the victim in the sum of $3,000.00 and a reconciliation ceremony was held between your family and the victim's family where peaceful relationship was re-established.
    
16. I am sure you have learnt a lot from this incident. This incident should make it clear to you that love is not something you can impose or force upon a girl. There are proper and better methods of winning a girl's heart.
    
17. I have also considered the range of sentences imposed in similar cases, both locally and overseas.
    
18. In Regina v Puluhenue[1] ("Puluhenue"), one of the victims was the accused's de facto wife and the other was another man. The relationship between the accused and his de facto wife began to go downhill and came to a climax when the accused saw the victim drinking beer the whole night with two men. As a result, the accused attacked the victims with an axe seriously injuring the wife and the man. He was convicted after trial of attempted murder and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
    
19. In Regina v Kennedy Bela[2] ("Bela"), the accused was convicted after trial of the attempted murder of the victim. However, the court had considered the delay in prosecuting the case as a serious mitigating factor and sentenced the accused to 3 years imprisonment. It was stated in that case that the sentence imposed in Puluhenue represents the mid-range of sentences to be imposed in attempted murder cases.
    
20. Lately, in R v Malefo[3] ("Malefo"), the accused intentionally threw his wife over a bridge which resulted in the wife sustaining very serious injuries from which she nearly died. The accused was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.
    
21. In R v David O'ofania[4] ("O'ofania"), one of the old cases on attempted murder, the accused was convicted of attempting to murder his wife and was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. In that case, it has been suggested that an imprisonment term between 5 to 7 years should be regarded as a mid-range sentence where the case involves a husband and wife.
    
22. With respect, I see no reason why there should be differentiation between attempted murder cases involving husband and wife and other attempted murder cases not involving husband and wife. A crime is a crime and the fact that it involves a husband and wife does not make the offence more or less serious.
    
23. As for overseas cases, counsel for the DPP has very helpfully referred to a number of Fijian cases.
    
24. In the State v Mohammed Atik[5], the accused was convicted after trial of attempted murder of his wife who had deserted him and was living with another man. It was a premeditated attack. The accused was sentenced to 6 years.
    
25. In the State v Daswa Nand Sharma[6], a knife was used to inflict injury on the victim who was a tenant in a home owned by the victim's father. The accused was young (24 years old) and was a student at the Fiji FIT. The accused was convicted after trial and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.
    
26. In the State v Rajendra Samy[7], the accused had pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted murder. The first victim was the accused's mother who was 67 years old. The second and third victims were the accused's nephews both of whom were 19 years old. The attempted murders were premeditated and involved the use of a weapon. Also, the injuries received were very serious and had long lasting effects on the victims. The accused had pleaded guilty and sentenced to 9 years imprisonment.
    
27. One thing is clear from the sentences in all the above cases, that is, all the accuseds were given custodial sentences. The point here is that in a case of attempted murder, a custodial sentence is inevitable. The only question is the length of the custodial sentence.
    
28. It follows therefore that in this case, a custodial sentence is also inevitable.
    
29. Having regard to the aggravating features and the mitigating factors I have referred to above as well as the range of sentences in similar cases also cited above, it is my view that a sentence of 6 years is appropriate in this case.
    
30. I therefore sentence you to 6 years imprisonment with effect from the date you were taken into custody.
    
31. You have a right of appeal if you are not satisfied with the length of your sentence.
    

THE COURT

^[1] [2009] SBHC 18.
^[2] [2004] SBHC 36.
^[3] [HCSI-CRC No. 330 of 2011.
^[4] HC-CRC No. 14 of 1975.
^[5] [2010] FJHC 199.
^[6] [2009] FHHC 62.
^[7] [2007] FJHC 78.