CRC, 24, 94.HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No.24 of 1994

REGINA

-v-

PAUL RAKAIMUA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ.)
Criminal Case No. 24 of 1994

Hearing: 19th, 20th, 21st, & 26th February 1996
Sentence: 15th March 1996 

DPP for Crown 
MB. Samuel for accused

MURIA. CJ: This young boy has been acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. He was only 12 years old when he committed the crime and now he is 14 years old. 

It is a sad case for all those affected by what had happened on that day of 19th September 1994. It is also particularly not a happy case for the court which has to impose the proper sentence on this 14 year old boy who has now been convicted of manslaughter, a crime which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Fortunately the Court has discretion in deciding what sentence should be imposed on this young boy. It would have been an even more sad moment for this Court and this convicted young boy if the crime of murder had been proved against him because the Court would have no discretion but to impose the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment on him. When that is done, this 14 year old boy would be sent to live and associate with hardened - adult prisoners and the consequences of that would only have to be seen after he comes out of prison (if he is ever released).

Having said all those, the problem still remains for the Court and that is, to decide what the proper form of sentence is to be imposed on this 14 year old boy who has been convicted of manslaughter. The bottom line position here is that in law the convicted person was only a “child” when he committed the offence and now he is only 14 years of age and he is regarded as a “young person”. See s.2 of the Juvenile offenders Act, 1972.

The Court must therefore bear in mind the appropriate methods of dealing with a child or young person after he is convicted of any offence.

The provision of the Juvenile Offenders Act that provides for the methods of dealing with children or young person charged with offences is section 16. That section provides as follows:

“16. Where a child or young person charged with any offence is tried by any court, and the court is satisfied of his guilt the court shall take into consideration the manner in which, under the provisions of this or any other Ordinance or law enabling the court to deal with the case, the case should be dealt with, and, subject to such provisions, may deal with the case in any of the following manners or combination thereof, namely-

(a) by dismissing the case; or

(b) by discharging the offender on his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties; or 

(c) by dealing with the offender under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1971; or

(d) by committing the offender to the care of a relative or other fit person; or 

(e) by ordering the offender to pay a fine, damages or costs; or 

(f) by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to pay a fine, damages or costs; or 

(g) by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to give security for his good behaviour; or 

(h) by directing that he be released on his entering into a bond to and receive sentence when called upon; or

(i) by committing the offender to custody in a place of detention; or

(j) where the offender is a young person, or by sentencing him to imprisonment; or

(k) by dealing with the case in any other manner in which it may be legally dealt with:

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the court to deal with any case in any manner in which it could not deal with the case apart from this section.”

There will be noted that the Court under that provision has a number of options to choose from when dealing with children or young persons who are charged with and found guilty of offences. The Court, however, will take into account the nature of the offences and will deal with those offences as they “should be dealt with.” In this case the Court will have to deal with it as a case of manslaughter, the penalty of which is normally, imprisonment which in principle if imposed on this prisoner, would not be wrong.

The problem faced by the Court is not deciding whether an imprisonment sentence is appropriate or not this sort of offences but rather in deciding whether or not this young 14 year old convicted person should be given that sentence. I will reiterate what I said earlier, that is, the convicted person we are dealing with here is a “young person” by virtue of section 2 of the Act. The underlying principles embodied in the Act are firstly, that a young person should not be sent to prison if he can be “suitably” dealt with in any of the ways mentioned in section 16 and secondly, that should the young person be sentenced to imprisonment, then he must “so far as practicable” not be allowed to associate with adult prisoners. These two underlying principles are laid down in section 12 of the Act.

In the present state of affairs regarding the prison I regret to say that the second principle mentioned of ensuring the separation of young persons from adult prisoners so far as practicable would not be possible to achieve. I am pleased to note that at long last after 24 years of the passage of the Juvenile Offenders Act, work has begun on the prison facilities which will include the construction of a Juvenile Detention Centre. When that is completed, “young persons” who are convicted will be appropriately accommodated in that facility. That is the place where this 14 year old young boy should be sent to but until that place is available, this Court must consider other alternatives.

The option of sending this young boy to prison (s16 (j)) must also present difficulties here. For to do so would undoubtedly be placing him to associate with adult prisoners and under section 12 of the Act that must be discouraged. See B and Another -v- R (1982) SILR 38 a.

The option of sending this young boy to a place of detention (s.16 (i)) is not possible because there was no such place established as yet. I shall have to consider the other options specified in section 16.

Counsel for the convicted young boy has suggested, and shared by the learned Director of Public Prosecutions, that the most appropriated options in this case would be those in paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 16 of the Act. I have given careful consideration to the suggestion and in the final analysis I come to the conclusion that Counsel’s suggestion has some merit. In my view committing this young boy to the care of a relative or other fit person would be more benefiting to the community and the young boy than committing him to prison where he will be forced to associate with adult prisoners and very likely learn their ways. The option suggested will also ensure that those to whom the young boy has been committed to their care will assume the responsibility of ensuring that the young boy commits no further wrongs against the community and those around him. They will directly play their part in assisting this young offender reform his behaviour with a view to building him up to be good citizen as he grows up.

In this reformatory process it is hoped that this young boy will come to realise and accept that even 12 year old children are subject to the law and that they will be met with the sanction of the Courts if they commit offences. The memory of causing the death of an innocent girl will always be with this young boy but it will be an event which will not be likely to be repeated by him.

Compensation is part of the sanctions used in custom among the people of this country to settle grievances and to make peace. It is also a form of punishment for committing wrongs against a person or community or tribe. It is therefore appropriate in cases such as the present that some form of reparation is made. The Court has been told that compensation or settlement will be made in this case for what this young boy had done. I strongly encourage that this be done in accordance with the custom of the parties, that is, custom of Tikopian people.

I feel that the presence of the young boy at the time of the compensation or settlement ceremony is essential. He will then realise and appreciate and make it part of his act of reparation for the wrong he did when he participates in that settlement process. He will never forget that he has paid for the wrong and the hurt he caused to the deceased’s family.

For all the reasons that I have mentioned, I shall deal with the sentencing of this convicted young person under paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 16 of the Juvenile Offenders Act. He may well seized the opportunity to once again pursue his education which ceased as a result of this case.

I order that offender be committed to the care of his grandparents (Chief Taukuna and his wife) and that compensation or settlement in accordance with the custom of Tikopia be made by the offender’s group to the deceased’s family.
Order accordingly.

GJB Muria
CHIEF JUSTICE