HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 478 of 2006

REGINA

-v-

WALTER RONI

(Mwanesalua, J.)

Hearing: 9 and 10 July 2007
Judgment/Sentence: 13 July 2007

Mr. Malaki Unagui for the Crown
Mr. Ikbal Khan for the Accused

JUDGMENT/SENTENCE

Mwanesalua, J: Walter Roni ("the accused") is charged with one count of murder and one count of abduction contrary to sections 200 and 251 of the Penal Code respectively. On 9 July 2007, the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the murder charge and guilty to the abduction charge. He was convicted of the abduction charge accordingly. The crown offered no evidence on the murder charge and the court acquitted him of that charge.

The Facts

The accused comes from Verahue village, in the Guadalcanal Province. He was a member of the Guadalcanal Liberation Front (GLF). On 27 May 2003, a group of 5 GLF men, including the accused went to Calvary village, on the Weather Coast of Guadalcanal. The accused was armed with a SR88 rifle. The victim, Francis Gemo, also went to Calvary village and went to a cocoa shed. The accused and 2 other men approached the victim at the cocoa shed where the accused, accused the victim of being a ‘spear’ (spy). The accused and the other 2 men tied the victim up with his hands behind his back with bush rope and took him to Calvary village. The victim was later taken away by the accused and 7 other men from the village down a valley towards the Uraghai River. At a location near the Uraghai River, the victim was severely beaten up with fists and gun butts by the men accompanying the accused. The autopsy report on the body of the victim, revealed that he died from gunshot trauma to the upper right back in tandem with blunt force trauma to the chest and jaw.

Mitigation

Five points were advanced on behalf of the accused as mitigation. They were his previous good character; his guilty plea; his age and that he joined the GLF in 1999, in order to preserve himself as a part Malaitan, from harm by Harold Keke.

Sentence

The accused’s offence is very serious. First, he deprived the victim of his right to liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed by the Constitution, when he restrained and took him by force to the location where he was beaten and shot dead, by the other persons in his company. Second, he committed the offence while armed with a rifle and in company of other men. These are aggravating factors in his offence. In the view of this court, the appropriate sentence for his offence would range between 7 to 10 years imprisonment.

His previous good character is generally a mitigating consideration. However, his impeccable background and previous untarnished character do not weigh heavily with this court, when he took a leading and prominent role in the abduction of the victim. He accused the victim of being a spy. He knew that he was a member of a brutal and fearsome militant group, notorious for the beating, torturing and killing of victims who were suspected of spying on it. He may be acting from orders of his Superiors, but the elimination of suspected spies, do protect his own unlawful activities in the group as well.

He says that he was 24 years old when he committed the offence. Youthfulness is an acceptable ground for extending leniency. But again this is subject to the overriding effect of the gravity of the offence. There is law on young persons who commit offences in this jurisdiction. That law is the Juvenile offenders Act (Cap.14). In section 2 of this Act, "young person" means a person who is, in the opinion of the court having cognizance of any case in relation to such person, fourteen years of age or upwards and under the age of eighteen years. It is accepted that he was 24 years old when he committed his offence. By then, he was over the age 18 years, and was not a young person according to Law in this jurisdiction. He was an adult when committed his offence on 27 May 2003.

A guilty plea, where it is indicative of remorse is a proper factor to be taken into account when considering the length of a sentence. There is no evidence to show that the guilty plea entered by the accused stemmed from genuine remorse. It was either due to the presence of overwhelming evidence against him or part of a plea bargain. However, this court will accept his guilty plea as serving the public interest. That is to say, that the guilty plea which he made, saved considerable time and expense of a trial. He will gain some reduction of his sentence on that basis.

The accused was part Malaitan and was recruited by Harold Keke to join the GLF in 1999. He told this court that he could not refuse the recruitment drive because that would be harmful to him as a part Malaitan. He did not tell this court whether he had ever made any attempt to leave the GLF before he committed his offence. It seemed from the facts and the mitigation before the court that he was acting as one of the leaders of the GLF. This court is not persuaded that he committed his offence merely as an ordinary member of the GLF.

The victim of his offence was a family man with 5 children. He went from his village to Calvary village to attend to his cocoa beans for sale to support his family when he was abducted by the accused. His family members have since lost the attention, care and the support of the victim, their father.

Conclusion

The offending by the accused is very serious. He has pleaded guilty which saved time and costs. He is given credit for that. He has been in custody since 5 December 2005. The sentence which fits his offence is 8 years imprisonment. He is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment accordingly. This sentence is to begin from 5 December 2005, the day he was first taken into custody.

Francis Mwanesalua
Puisne Judge