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

HCSI-CRC 141 of 2010

REGINA

v

CHRIS WALENENEA

Dates of Hearing: 21st February 2013
Date of Sentence: 22nd February 2013

Mr. A. Aulanga for the Crown.
Mr. E. Cade for the accused.

SENTENCE

1.	Chris Walenenea, you have been convicted of manslaughter in relation to the death of Steward Romeasi ("deceased") on the 20th June 2009 at the main road near Talakali in Malaita Province.

2.	You now appear for sentence.

The Facts:

3.	The facts of the case have been set out in detail in my judgment delivered on the 4th February 2013. I will not repeat them here.

Comparative sentences:

4.	A number of case authorities have been provided by counsel indicating the range of sentences previously imposed for manslaughter cases.

5.	These sentences ranged from 1 year to 5 years for those which do not involve the use of weapons and 6 years upwards for those which involved the use of weapons.

6.	Those cases also show that, unless exceptional circumstances exist to justify otherwise, a sentence for manslaughter must inevitably be custodial. I find no exceptional circumstance in this case which would justify a non-custodial sentence.

Aggravating features:

7.	The seriousness of any offence, including manslaughter, is reflected in the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence. In this case, the maximum sentence prescribed is life imprisonment. 

8.	Of course, the maximum sentence is reserved only for the worst kind of case, however, any sentence passed in relation to an offence must reflect the circumstances in which the offence was committed. While the nature of the offence may be the same, the circumstances in which they were committed could be different. Some may be committed in circumstances which could be described as very serious and some in not so serious circumstances.

9.	In this case, a man has unexpectedly lost his life as a result of your behavior. Death must always be considered as the core of the offence of manslaughter and must be reflected in the sentence.

10.	Furthermore, you were drunk and had hidden in your shirt a bayonet. You gave no explanation why you have been going around in public with a bayonet hidden away under your shirt. A number of cases have come before this court in the past years which involved very serious and fatal attacks being inflicted by persons going around in public with knives and other dangerous weapons hidden in their clothes. Where an offence is committed in such circumstances, the public would expect any sentence imposed to be lengthy. This case is one such case.

11.	Your attempted attack on the deceased was unprovoked and was committed on an unsuspecting victim. It happened in a public bus with women on board. It must have been a very frightening experience for the deceased as well as for these women.

12.	It is clear in this case that you had unresolved disputes with the deceased. Your attempted attack on the deceased in the Bus was the result of these unresolved disputes. It is not the most civilised manner of resolving disputes and one that is to be discouraged.

Mitigating factors:

13.	A number of mitigating factors have been urged upon the court on your behalf.

14.	First, you are a first offender and I accept that you are entitled to a measure of leniency.

15.	Second, you have offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, the offence with which you are now convicted. I accept that your offer to plead guilty to manslaughter must be treated as you having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter offence of which you are now convicted. That is in line with the well-established principle that an offender's unaccepted offer to plead guilty to the offence of which he was ultimately convicted is relevant to sentence. It matters not whether the offence to which the prisoner had offered the guilty plea was a lesser offence than the one charged. If, after trial for the more serious charge, he is convicted of the lesser charge for which he had offered the guilty plea, he is entitled to a measure of leniency as if he had pleaded guilty to that lesser charge.

16.	The offer to plead guilty is, broadly speaking, of benefit to the person charged in that it is taken as an indication of remorse and contrition for the offence committed and there is what is described as the utilitarian value of the plea which includes the relieve to the state from having to call witnesses and the relieve to the various witnesses of the burden of having to give evidence and potentially being cross-examined. In this case, your unaccepted offer to plead guilty to manslaughter is a strong mitigating factor in your favour.

17.	Your counsel has submitted that the offence is a spur-of-the-moment offence. I do not agree. Your statement to the deceased immediately before you threatened him with the knife to the effect that he was the one you were looking for does not support your counsel's submission.

18.	Your counsel has also referred to the cases of R v Consinto (4 years), R v Oma (4 ½ years) and R v Baomate (4 years) to support his submission that the level of culpability in those cases are higher than your case in that the deaths in those cases were caused by actual infliction of injuries with weapons whereas the death in your case was caused by threats of violence only.

19.	I do not think there is much difference in the level of culpability in those cases as compared to your case. The fact is that weapons were used in both those cases and your case. It makes no difference whether the death was caused by the actual use of the weapon or by threats to use the weapon.

Sentence:

20.	Having considered the circumstances of this case and the sentences imposed for manslaughter cases in the past as well as the aggravating and mitigating features of this case and other matters urged upon me by counsel, it is my view that the appropriate sentence in this case is one of 5 years.

21.	Accordingly, I sentence you to 5 years imprisonment back-dated to the date when you were taken into custody. 

THE COURT