IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 8 of 1996

REGINA

-v-

SIPIRIANO HAROROANIMAE

High Court of Solomon Islands 
(Muria, CJ.) 
Criminal Case No.8 of 1996 

Hearing: 22 October 1997 
Sentence: 22 October 1997 

J. Faga for Prosecution 
M. Samuel for Accused 

MURIA, CJ: This accused was charged for murder but was quitted of that charge and was convicted of manslaughter. 

I do not need to repeat the facts of this case. I need only say now that he killed his wife and his uncle in the circumstances in which he was lucky that the Court found him guilty only of manslaughter. The killing of the two deceased’s clearly can only be described as grave and Mrs. Samuel very properly did not seek to put it otherwise. 

At the hearing I brought to the attention of Counsel the case of R -v- Johnson Tariani [1988-89] SILR 7. 

Although that case deals with a conviction of attempted murder, and the High Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment. On appeal against sentence to the Court of Appeal, the sentence was upheld. Like the present case, the accused in that case was also suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. 

Counsel for the accused in the present case submits that the present case must be distinguished from the Johnson Tariani’s case. Having considered the circumstances in the two cases, I feel I can accept the suggestion that there are distinguishing features in the two cases. 

Although both cases involved accused suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, the circumstances of the cases and the accused in the two cases are different. 

Apart from the fact that the offences were different although in the present case two people died, this is a case where the accused was convicted only of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. In Johnson Tariani’s case, the accused knew and intended to cut the victim. In so far as the medical report were concerned the report on the present accused shows a somewhat slightly brighter prospect of improvement of the accused’s condition than that in Johnson Tariani where the accused had been clearly recommended for a long term medical attention to control his psychiatric illness. Another distinguishing feature also is that which Mrs. Samuel referred to and that is, the previous history of the accused. This was the first time the present accused committed such a serious offence unlike that in Johnson Tariani’s case. 

I have considered the medical report by the Doctor in the present case as to the psychiatric conditions of the accused in this case. I have also considered the personal circumstances of the accused and case itself. In my view a custodial sentence is inevitable. But the circumstances justify this court in not imposing an indeterminate sentence upon the accused. 

I hope the accused will succeed in his endeavour to be made well through the assistance of medical expert and I trust that assistance should continue for sometime until the accused can be said to be free from his psychiatric illness. 

The Court in this case has the benefit of a continuous psychiatric assessment of the accused’s condition and I am grateful to Doctor Ashok Kumar Singh for his assistance in this matter. As an expert in the field, I am confident that I can rely on his assessment of the accused. I am of the view that the role played by expert in the area such as this, is important in assessing the mental condition of the accused even if only for sentencing purposes. 

The sentence of the Court will therefore be one of 5 years imprisonment effective from the date the accused was taken into custody. 

I urge that the recommendations contained in paragraph (iii) on page 3 of the Doctor’s report of 6 September 1996 be borne in mind by all those concerned. In particular, I recommend that the accused, upon his release, be placed in the care of his sister Helen Hasiamane who should report to the Doctor any features of psychiatric sickness suffered by the accused again. 

Sentence: 5 years imprisonment w.e.f 4 October 1995. 

GJB Muria
CHIEF JUSTICE