1982 SILR 38a

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Appeal Cases Numbers 2 and 3 of 1982

B AND ANOTHER

 -v- 

R

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Daly C.J.)
Criminal Appeal Cases Numbers 2 and 3 of 1982 

24th February 1982

Sentence - young persons - absence of place of detention - proper sentence - adverse prison conditions - Juvenile Offenders Act 1972 section 16.

Facts:

The Appellants B and M were young persons convicted of breaking and entering offences. Each was sentenced to six months imprisonment under section 16 (j) of the Juvenile Offenders Act ('the Act'). No place of detention was provided pursuant to section 17 of the Act, 1972 The Appellants were, in the course of imprisonment, brought into contact with adult prisoners.

Held:

Although the sentences were not wrong in principle the fact that it was difficult in conditions then obtaining to observe the requirements in section 12 of the Act that "so far as is practicable" young persons should not be allowed to associate with adult prisoners, the Appellants would be released.

For Appellants: A. Radclyffe Esq.
For Respondent: L. Holt Esq. D.P.P

Daly CJ: This case reveals a sorry state of affairs If as a result of it some positive action is taken to provide proper penal facilities in Honiara then some good will have come of it.

The two Appellants B and M are aged respectively 14 years and about 15 years. B. appeared in the Central Magistrates Court sitting as a juvenile court on the 2nd February 1982 charged with one offence of club breaking. His antecedents showed that in August and September of 1981 he had appeared in the same court charged with housebreaking c/s 293 (a) Penal Code and, no doubt in view of his age, he had been placed on probation for 2 years and bound over to keep the peace for 2 years. That such leniency was not working is shown by the fact that he appeared again on a similar offence on 2nd February.

B is a young person within the terms of the Juvenile Offenders Act, 1972 ('the Act'). The District Magistrate considered the alternatives open to him under section 16 of the Act.

Perfectly understandably decided that a custodial sentence was the only way to teach this young man a lesson. That left him with the theoretical choice between committal in a place of detention (section 16(i)) or imprisonment (section 16(j)). I say theoretical because despite the fact that the Act has been in force for 10 years no place of detention has been provided as is required by section 17.

It is an unfortunate fact that the courts are seeing more and more young people come before them who appear to be unreceptive to leniency. Honiara is a growing town with all the disadvantages of urban life and we must face the fact that this trend will continue without a fina1 sanction courts are powerless to perform their function of deterrence. The young need to be deterred too from embarking on a life of crime. The moment has come when a detention centre for young persons should be a priority. Money so spent at this stage may mean the saving of a youthful delinquent, who might well cost the country a great deal of money if he graduates to being an adult criminal.

The magistrate in this case, then, was left with imprisonment. He sentenced B to three months and made an order under S. 296 P.C. No one would suggest that in the situation faced by the Magistrate that was anything but a proper sentence.

M appeared before a Principal Magistrate sitting in the Central Court on a number of occasions and finally on 8th Feb. 1982 when he was sentenced to six months imprisonment on each of two offences of burglary, the sentences to be served concurrently. He asked for two other offences of burglary to be taken into consideration. To say that this young man showed disregard for law and order is an understatement. He committed one of the offences the night before he was due to appear in court and another after he had been bailed for sentence. The property involved totalled $400.00. The learned Magistrate after a full and careful consideration of the case came to the conclusion with reluctance that prison was the only alternative open to him with this decision too no one could quarrel.

The two appellants were sent to serve their sentences at Central Prison, Rove. The legislation as one would expect requires (S. 12) that "so far as is practicable" young persons should not be allowed to associate with adult prisoners. At the Central Prison it appears that with the present facilities a degree of association is inevitable. From a most useful report prepared by a Principal Magistrate, as a prison visitor, the Court has learned that, until at least this week, these young men were continually in the company of adult prisoners. It is unnecessary to set out the reasons why this is most undesirable. They are obvious. There are also allegations made by one appellant of sexual mistreatment by one of the adult prisoners. I accept what the learned Director of Public Prosecutions says when he suggests that this is at present uncorroborated. But the fact that such an allegation is made by a boy of this age is in itself a reflection on the state of mind created in him by his environment.

It is also true to say, and I am glad to be able to do so, that from this week conditions will improve for the appellants if they stay in prison. Due to building work in progress they will have their own cell. I am also pleased to hear that the Government is actively considering a new penal establishment. What I must now consider is whether, in the light of what I have now heard about the conditions under which these appellants will serve their sentence, the sentences of imprisonment should continue. I have decided that, despite the improvements, the sentences should not continue. I make it clear that I do not find that the sentences were wrong in principle; they were not. But from what has been said in the reports, conditions have been such that a further continuation of the sentence cannot be a matter which this court is prepared to say is in the interest of the appellants, or the judicial and penal system of Solomon Islands.

I shall therefore substitute for the sentences of imprisonment in each case such sentences of imprisonment as will permit the appellants to be released today.

I also make an order that each appellant be conveyed to his place of origin and reside there for a period of one year under s. 296 P.C.

I make no orders in respect of the breaches of probation and binding over committed by B.