HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Rongota 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	15 June 2020	
		
Parties: 	Regina v Annet Madina Rongota 	
		
Date of hearing: 		
		
Court file number(s): 	36 of 2020	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Maina J	
		
On appeal from:	Magistrates Court	
		
Order:	The appeal is dismissed 	
		
Representation: 	Benham Ifuto’o for Appellant 
Dalcy Belapitu for Respondent	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code, s273 (a) (i)	
		
Cases cited:		

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 36 of 2020

REGINA

V

ANNET MADINA RONGOTA

Date of Sentence: 15 June 2020

Counsel
Benham Ifuto’o for Appellant
Dalcy Belapitu for Respondent
RULING
Maina PJ:
When this appeal was listed for hearing the counsels stated that they wish to rely on their written submissions that are already filed with the court.
Annet Madina Rongota appealed against her sentence of 18 months imprisonment imposed by Principal Magistrate on pleaded guilty of the charge of larceny by servant contrary to section 273 (a) (i) of the Penal Code.
Grounds of appeal
The appellant filed four grounds of appeal however in the submission the appellant abandoned Grounds 3 and 4 as they relate to Grounds 1 and 2:
1.	That the sentence by the learned magistrate was manifestly excessive in those circumstances.
2.	That the learned magistrate erred in fact, in consideration of a high starting point.
Grounds 1 and 2 though raised separately they are related and should be dealt with together as any consideration of any one of them would involve discussion on all of them.
The Issue
Whether the sentence of 18 months imposed by the magistrate was manifestly excessive?
The Court
The alleged errors of law that is asked by the appellant for this court to check or review in the sentence is that the magistrate had set a high starting point comparing the circumstances and fact of the case with like offences or the magistrate rely more on aggravating features. And upon that, the magistrate imposed a manifestly excessive sentence for the offence which the appellant had pleaded guilty on and a first offender.
Briefly, the agreed facts and circumstances of the offending is the appellant worked for KC Enterprises shop for almost 2 years. The owner collected $67,750.00 from her customers and she put the money in a plastic bag together with a packet bag of milk tea. At about 4 pm, the owner returned to KC Enterprises at Kukum and she instructed the appellant to hand-deliver the plastic bag containing the money and the milk tea to the cashier of the shop. Appellant did so and when the casher asked her what was in the plastic, the appellant replied that it was a packet of milk tea. Appellant then with other employees of the shop went down to the wharf to do cargo delivery.
On returning to the shop, the appellant noticed that the plastic bag was still at the cashier’s counter where she left it. Appellant then took the plastic bag of the money and the milk tea and left the shop. On 29th November 2019, the appellant was arrested and Police recovered $8,750.00 from her.
The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge and that a sum of $59,000.00 was not recovered or lost from alleged act of her.
Counsel for appellant in the submission made reference to similar cases dealt with in this jurisdiction under the Code with similar facts and argued that sentence for the appellant must reflect the level of culpability and an 18 months imposed on his client is too harsh when counsel claimed that she only took for her use only $5,000.00. The sentence of 18 months is manifestly excessive in the circumstances of this case. The magistrate failed to consider suspending the sentence partly or wholly.
The maximum sentence for the offence available under the Penal Code is 14 years. And in the sentence the magistrate alluded or referred to the breach of trust, financial lose, and the offending involved pre-planning as aggravating factors. For the mitigation he alluded the guilty plea, being first offender, youthfulness, co-operating with the Police, and recovery of $8,750.00 by the Police.
The magistrate alluded that upon considered the aggravating factors, the ranges of sentences in the previous cases and the need for deterrence, he stated that the appropriate sentence or starting point for appellant was 36 months.
And with mitigation the magistrate reduced or deducted 9 months for guilty plea, 3 months for being the first offender and 6 months to reflect youthfulness, a total 18 months and exactly half of the appropriate sentence or starting point of 36 months.
It is comprehended that criminal statutes generally authorise term of imprisonment far longer with maximum i.e. 14 years with this offence than are normally in practice. And it is by the legislative structure that create two distinct systems of sentencing, reflecting different penal objectives and governed by different principles. With this the magistrate has a choice to impose general deterrence or a sentence to influence the future behaviour of the defendant
From the earliest days in England and Wales or Courts in the Common Law have recognise that while no invariable tariff can be fix, the task of the court was by revision of sentence to harmonize the views of those who passed them and so ensure that varying punishment are not awarded for the same amount of the guiltiness. And that is this principles and practices adopted in this jurisdiction.
Quite interestingly, the reduction and consideration of the mitigation by the magistrate was not touched on by the counsel for appellant in the submission but if a lesser starting point was determined, the 18 months reduction would drastically reduce the period to be served by the defendant. And that should exactly be the consequence or outcome.
The Principal magistrate clearly referred to the matters in the aggravating features and mitigation when he came up with the appropriate sentence of 36 months and such gave him the reason to reduce the sentence from that maximum of 14 years available under the Code. Very well, an appropriate sentence was set before taking mitigation into account and certainly reduced the 36 months to only 18 months to be served. And find no error in the sentence.
The appeal is dismissed.
THE COURT
Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge