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

R v Hitu [2023] SBHC 50; HCSI-CRC 621 of 2020 (26 June 2023)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 621 of 2020

REX

V

RUBEN JAYRICK HITU

Date of Hearing: 6June 2023
Date of Decision: 26 June 2023

Mrs Olivia Ratu for the Crown
Mr Steven Weago for the Defendant

Sentence

Bird PJ:

1. This defendant has been convicted for the offence of manslaughter by this court on the 19^th May 2023. He now appears before me for sentence.
2. You are reminded that the offence that you have been convicted of is very serious and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Notwithstanding, I am empowered under section 24 (2) of the Penal Code (cap 26) to impose a shorter sentence depending upon the peculiar circumstances of your case.
3. In your case, it is submitted by Mrs Ratu-Manu that there are several aggravating features therein. Firstly is the fact that the deceased was not armed at the material time. It is also submitted that your assault on the deceased was unprovoked. You were the one that picked an argument with the deceased. I am also told that you were the aggressor in the whole incident. Your assault had caused the deceased to fall and rolled over the cliff and died as a result. It is further submitted by the crown that a life was unnecessarily lost through your action and behaviour towards him. I am referred to the case of R v Walenenea [2013] SBHC 14 by Mrs Ratu-Manu on that point and I have noted the ratio used therein.
4. On your behalf, Mr Weago of counsel submits that you were about 23 years old at the time of offending. You have been remanded in pre-trial custody for a total period of 6 months and 2 days. Your highest level of education was Form 2 and you have no formal employment. You were accepted to undertake an electrical course at City Mission Rural Training Centre. For this offending you were unable to undertake that course. I also note that you have no previous conviction and that you are a first offender.
5. According to the evidence adduced in court by the prosecution and yourself, you punched the deceased once on his face. He fell down from that punch and rolled over a cliff and died. Your lawyer have submitted that the fall was caused by a single punch on the deceased. I must therefore say that it was an unfortunate incident because of the landscape of the place of offending. If it had occurred on flat landscape, death might not have been occasioned on the deceased from the single punch.
6. To assist me in the determination of an appropriate sentence to be imposed in this case, the prosecution and the defence have referred me to various cases involving the same offence of manslaughter. In the case of Rongodala v Regina [2006] SBCA 2, the Court of Appeal stated inter alia that in sentencing like offenders, the court would have regard to the age of the offender, previous criminal history of the offender, particularly whether these are previous convictions involving violence, provocation, intoxication, type of weapon used, persistence of attack and the vulnerability of the victim. This guidelines they say is not exhaustive. The accused in that case caused the death of his wife by throwing an axe on her head. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and the Court of Appeal approved of that sentence as appropriate in the circumstances in that case.
7. In the case of Popoe v Regina [2015] SBCA 20, the appellant killed his wife by sitting on her left shoulder causing severe internal injuries to her body and resulted in her death several hours later. The Court of Appeal in that case was of the view that the starting point when a weapon is used in the offence would be a sentence of 6 years or more. In Popoe’s case, the Court of Appeal reduced the 10 years imprisonment term to a period of 7 years and further reduced it to 6 years imprisonment after taking into account the mitigating factors in that case.
8. With the principles enunciated in the above cases by the Court of Appeal, I take into account the fact that you were not armed with a weapon. Your attack on the deceased was not persistent. You were 23 years old at the time of offending and you have no previous criminal history. I will also take into account that you were intoxicated when you committed the offending. The courts have echoed time and time again about the effect of alcohol in the commission of criminal offences. If you have been sober minded on that occasion, what you have done might not have occurred. I urge you to stay out of the use of alcohol. Be sober-minded at all times and learn from your mistake. I also note that the deceased being on sloppy landscape was in a vulnerable position when you attacked him. I will therefore put your starting point at 5 years imprisonment.
9. I also take into account the mitigation features on your behalf and reduce the sentence by 1 year. I hereby sentence you to 4 years imprisonment. I further direct that the time spent in pre-trial custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.

Orders of the Court

1. The defendant Mr Reuben Jayrick Hitu is hereby sentenced to a term of 4 years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter pursuant to section 199 of the Penal Code (cap 26)
2. The time spent in pre-trail custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.
3. Right of appeal

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge