HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)

Criminal Case Number 457 of 2013

REGINA

V

Frederick Batalau'ia

HEARING:	17th February 2016
Sentence:	18th February 2016

R. B. Talasasa (Jnr) for the Crown 
H. Lawry for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.

1.	The defendant was initially charged with the offence of attempted murder but was then withdrawn and replaced with a new information containing a charge of grievous harm contrary to section 224(a) of the Penal Code, to which he has immediately entered a guilty plea. 

2.	The brief facts of the case showed that there had been some friction between their families over some allegations of sorcery related matters and that these had adversely affected their relationships. Note the victim is married to the sister of the defendant in this case and had been living together in the same area prior to these. This court notes with concern that allegations of sorcery or witchcraft whether true or not have a tendency of evoking strong feelings of animosity and anger amongst those affected and exploding often into some form of violence. This case is no exception to that as those involved are very close family members.

3.	As a consequence the family of the victim had to move out from the area of the defendant. They only returned following some reconciliation that had been done. Unfortunately there remained some tension between them and so it was agreed that they should ask a Pastor to come and have prayers for reconciliation. 

4.	Tragically, what was supposed to be a reconciliation day turned nasty and violent for the parties in this case.

5.	 Mr. Lawry for the defendant had sought to explain to the court the background circumstances resulting in the attack. He pointed out that despite the efforts of the defendant to have the reconciliation completed, the victim continued to persist in asking for compensation, which the defendant could not understand and despite asking him to stop or leave he continued. Learned Counsel pointed out that there was an element of provocation, which ultimately led to the defendant snapping, losing his cool (self-control) and attacking the victim.

6.	He pointed out that this was a one off situation, it was not pre-meditated or planned, to the contrary the very opposite was being sought to be done that evening.

7.	He pointed out the defendant is a first time offender, with no previous convictions and has entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.

8.	I do bear in mind thou that a weapon was used, a knife and that grievous harm was caused resulting in the permanent loss of a limb. The injury inflicted could easily have been life threatening but through timely medical intervention the injury was arrested and confined.

9.	I have been referred to a number of cases but can distinguish those on their facts. The range of sentences for grievous harm fall within 18 months – 5 years. Where there are clear aggravating features present the sentences will noticeably be higher. As I pointed out earlier, no alcohol was involved, pre-planning or premeditation. It was a spontaneous act on the part of the defendant sparked off by the sudden deteriorating mood in the discussions, which prevailed that evening and spiralled out of control, something, which was never intended. 

10.	I give credit for a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity and that the defendant is a first offender.

11.	I note the comments of the learned Director expressing his concerns in what he perceives to be a tendency to resort to violence when settling disputes and this court must continue to echo those sentiments that our people must not resort to the use of violence when resolving disputes. This is what the rule of law and justice is about that people should be able to live their lives peacefully and harmoniously with one another in the community with respect and tolerance and when disputes or disagreements occur to revert to peaceful and lawful means to have them resolved as provided for in our communities, churches and the law. 

12.	The court however must also balance each case according to any mitigating and extenuating factors presented before it before arriving at an appropriate sentence where the punishment fits the crime.

13.	Balancing all factors in this case, I am satisfied a sentence of four years will adequately reflect the element of punishment and deterrence in this case but also recognising that there are good prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration in the defendant's case. As pointed out in this sentence, the parties are closely related to each other through marriage and so it is inevitable that making peace must be a priority for them. 

14.	Learned Counsel Mr. Lawry pointed out that the defendant has been in pre-trial custody since June 13th 2013 to be exact. That is some 32 months as at this point of time and according to my calculation he would have served a substantive part of his sentence as at today's date, not a day later. Accordingly, it would be my view that he would be entitled to be released at the rising of the court.

Orders of the Court:

1.	Convict the defendant of the charge of grievous harm contrary to section 224(a) of the Penal Code and impose sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

2.	The period spent in custody is to be taken into account.

3.	In the light of the fact that a substantive part of his sentence (32 months) would have been served he is entitled to be released at the rising of the court herewith.

The Court.