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

R v Suiramo [2024] SBHC 79; HCSI-CRC 300 of 2023 (9 August 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 300 of 2023

REX

V

DANIEL SUIRAMO

Date of Hearing: 1 May 2024
Date of Sentence: 9 August 2024

Mr. A. Kelesi for the Crown
Mr. Kwalai for the Defendant

SENTENCING AFTER PLEAS OF GUILTY

Faukona, DCJ:
Introduction.

1. The defendant Mr. Daniel Suiramo was charged for one Count of Manslaughter contrary to section 199 (1) of the Penal Code. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment.
2. When the offence of manslaughter was read to the defendant on 1^st November 2023, he entered a plea of guilty immediately. Upon reading of the brief facts of the case, the defendant also agreed to the facts.

Agree summary of facts.

3. The defendant is Mr. Daniel Suiramo from Chonaponga villages Variana area, West Guadalcanal, Guadalcanal Province. The deceased is Pauline Mateseni and is related to the defendant as her brother.
4. The incident occurred on 5^th February, 2023, between 7 am and 12 midday, at Chonaponga village, Variana area, West Guadalcanal.
5. The On that day the defendant was sick and was lying on a hammock on the veranda of their house. After Sunday church services the deceased’s mother, Angela Lumkulo returned to their house. The deceased’s mother was not happy with the defendant and his wife because they did not accompany her to the Honiara Central Market on a previous occasion.
6. As soon as she arrived from Church service, she started to complain by saying, üfala stay lo house ölowe nomoa, what na bae ufala doim stap osem nomoa, then what na bae ufala kaikaim? Whilst the mother was preparing the potatoes for cooking, the deceased proceeded to wash their rice.
7. At that very moment the deceased told her that the defendant had eaten the nuts she had prepared for the market. The mother then told the defendant that what she had prepared for market was purposely for that. The mother continued on complaining until the defendant got tired and felt provoked so he threw the knife in the direction of where the deceased was sitting and hit her on the right leg.
8. The knife pieced through her right leg with 7 centimeters length and 3 centimeters wide. That is the entry wound on her leg. The depth of the cut was 10cm. The knife went through the leg and out on the other side of the leg. The wound on the other side of the leg is measure at 5 cm length and about 2-3 cm wide.
9. One of the deceased’s sisters came to the assistance and removed the knife resulting in the deceased falling to the ground. The deceased cried in agony as blood oozed out from the wounds.
10. The deceased was rushed to Lambi clinic and then to the National referral hospital for treatment. At the hospital the deceased was admitted for three days and received medical treatment. However the condition never changed hence she died on 7^th February 2023. The family then reported the matter to Police and the defendant was apprehended and arrested on 11^th February, 2023.

Sentencing guidelines.

11. The cases of Bara v Reginam^[1] and Tii v R,^[2] which I often refer to as setting significant guidelines for judges to follow, has now becoming too familiar to recite. Hence, it need not be repeated again. However, the guidelines are there.

Starting point.

12. It would seem that the starting point for manslaughter is still unsettled among Counsels who frequently indulge in criminal trials and sentencing, thus appear from submissions for sentencing.
13. In the current case, the Crown Counsel first refers to the case of Tapa’amae v R^[3] which the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirm the 6 years sentence imposed by the High Court.
14. The Counsel also refers to the case of Popoe V Reginam^[4], which the Court of Appeal stated, “when a weapon was used in the offending, a sentence of imprisonment of 6 years or more should be imposed as a starting point. The same sentiment was equally echoed in the case of Rongodala V Regina^[5]?
15. On the contrary, the Counsel for the defendant addressed the Court that the starting point for a charge of manslaughter is 7 years, the Counsel refer to the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Tapa’amae v R^[6].
16. I have read the case of Tapa’amae v R^[7] in full and agree with Counsel for the defense that the starting point for the charge of manslaughter is 7 years.

Aggravating factors.

17. The factors that make the offending serious are weapon was used to commit the offence. It was a bush knife that was thrown in a spearing manner from the second floor of the family home, which landed on the right leg of the deceased. The knife pieced through the leg and came out on the other side towards the left leg.
18. The deceased is the biological sister of the defendant. To spear her with a bush knife, that resulted in her death is a serious action. It does not speak well of the defendant. The defendant must be out of his mind and insane. Apparently the defendant must be someone who can’t control himself with no respect to his siblings, or to his entire family.
19. There must be some force behind throwing of the knife which caused the wounds on the entry and exit parts of the leg. The photographs reveal a kind of a wound that no one can survive it.
20. The offending may be unpredictable, but the action taken by the defendant in throwing the knife at his sister is recklessness. He predicted by throwing the knife at his sister, will certainly harm her. There was no one else near to her. The defendant clearly has intention to harm his sister. He is so privileged that the charge of murder was with-drawn and substituted with the lesser charge of manslaughter. Otherwise he would have to challenge a serious charge than manslaughter.
21. The aggravating features which provide an avenue for possible conclusion that the capable criminal act resorted to by the defendant is very serious. The death of his sister has caused as great loss to the family, something they will not forget for the rest of their lives.
22. I therefore uplift by 3 years above the starting point of 7 making it 10 years.

Mitigating factors.
Early guilty plea.

23. I give credit to the defendant for entering a plea of guilty at the first opportunity. By pleading guilty, the defendant has expressed his contrite heart and his willingness to face any penalty imposed by the law. Furthermore, his guilty plea avoids a long trial and resources to get witnesses and accommodated in Honiara.
24. I also consider the age of the defendant which is 27 years, and that he is a married man. He has no previous convictions. This is his first offence which he confronted the rule of law.
25. The defendant’s Counsel submits the defendant was provoked, therefore lost control of his sense and threw the knife that struck his sister on her leg.
26. The provocation act was in terms of words said which were repeated which he got tired. The words were complain by the mother because the defendant had eaten her nuts which she gathered for the market.
27. I do not seem to see any provocative act by words of complaint repeated by the mother. In actual fact the mother as a parent upon knowing something was not right in the home, she is entitled to talk out. Whether she repeated or not, the children must respect and obey as expected of any family. To treat the words of advice by the mother as provocative cannot be accepted but rather he defied and disrespected.
28. To deviate from what the mother said and reacted in a manner he did, is an unbearable behavior of the defendant. As a result, was a death in the family an incident their family will not reconciled easily with for years to come.
29. With those expression of the mitigating factors I therefore reduce the tariff by 1½years. The defendant should serve 8½ years.
30. Any pre-trial custody period be deducted from the sentence of 8½years.
31. This sentence has indeed upheld the deterrent effect to ensure the defendant and others including communities learnt lessons from.

Orders:

1. The defendant is convicted on his own plea of guilty.
2. The defendant should serve 8½years in prison.
3. Any pre-trial custody period be deducted from the 8½ years sentence.

THE COURT.
Hon. Faukona Rex.
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE.

^[1] [2018] SBCA 10; SICOA 36 of 2017 (1 February 2021).
^[2] [2016] SBCA 14.
^[3] [2021] SBCA 17; SICOA-CRAC 3 of 2020 (1 February 2021).
^[4] Ibid (3)
^[5] [2006] SBCA 2; CA-CRAC 8 of 2006 (25 May 2006).
^[6] Ibid (3)
^[7] Ibid (3)