Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Regina v Hou [2015] SBHC 23; HCSI-CRC 122 of 2014 (25 March 2015)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)

Criminal Case Number 122 of 2014

REGINA

V

Eddie Pwie Hou

HEARING: 4th March 2015
Sentence: 25th March 2015

F. Joel (Ms) for the Crown
Mr. S. Valenitabua for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.

• You have been convicted of the offence of manslaughter after pleading guilty on the 2nd March 2015. This was after the original charge of murder was reduced to one of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The offence of manslaughter is one of the more serious offences under our criminal law in this country. Its' seriousness is reflected in the maximum sentence of life imprisonment that can be imposed on conviction. The gravity in the criminality of the offence is recognised by the fact that a life has been unlawfully taken away suddenly.
  
• There are of-course varying degrees of seriousness depending on the circumstances of each case, the offence, offender and the presence of aggravating and or mitigating factors. Each case is to be considered on its own merits to arrive at an appropriate sentence.
  
• In this case, you attacked the deceased with two knives that you had in your possession that night. You inflicted grievous wounds to his body which resulted in his death almost immediately thereafter. According to the post mortem report of Dr. Roy Maraka dated 10th November 2013, a total of twelve stab wounds were inflicted, more specifically, a stab wound to the head, five stab wounds to the front chest area and another five stab wounds to the back. As well there were numerous slash and laceration wounds that were also noted on the body of the deceased. The stab wounds in particular would have caused grievous injuries, notably injuries to his internal organs including the heart, stomach, lung, and liver. The cause of death was excessive loss of blood, the medical term for this being exsanguination, as a direct result of the injuries received.
  
• I note your guilty plea taken at the earliest opportunity and give credit for that. There are however, serious aggravating features in this case which are of concern.
  
• In the report of Dr. Paul Orotaloa, Consultant Psychiatrist, at the National Referral Hospital dated 8 November 2013 he noted you became aware of symptoms of paranoid psychosis after drinking some so-called custom medicine in July 2013 for protection against curses and misfortunes, such as bad luck etc. There was a manifest change in your behaviour which demonstrated you were labouring under some mental, psychological or psychiatric problem. This came to the knowledge of your relatives in Honiara who arranged for you to travel to Honiara so that they could look after you and try to help you. The sad part but which is also of concern is that this violent episode occurred while you were in the care of the very people who could help you; it was sudden, without any pre-warning with tragic consequences. You were in the company of your relatives (your carers) and no one anticipated your violent reaction or behaviour that night. When you attacked them, all they could do and tried to do was to escape from you because you were armed with dangerous weapons, two knives and extremely aggressive.
  
• The circumstances therefore surrounding the commission of the offence cannot be brushed aside lightly by this court, especially when there was no explanation for the sudden change of behaviour or suggestion on what may have triggered your behaviour. The attack was spontaneous but intense and deadly, giving little time for the deceased to escape. There was no time for anyone to intervene and be able to try and calm you down.
  
• I note that after the initial attack, the deceased managed to escape from you but you pursued him and continued with your attack. You were only distracted when others threw stones at you and you had to run off to protect yourself.
  
• The use of weapons two knives, in this case as well, is an aggravating feature.
  
• In the case of R. v. Chambers Leonard J. provided some useful guidance on sentencing of manslaughter cases as a consequence of diminished responsibility:
  

"In diminished responsibility cases there are various courses open to a judge. His choice of the right course will depend on the state of the evidence and the material before him. If the psychiatric reports recommend and justify it, and there are no contrary indications, he will make a hospital order. Where a hospital order is not recommended, or is not appropriate, and the defendant constitutes a danger to the public for an unpredictable period of time, the right sentence will, in all probability, be one of life imprisonment.

In cases where the evidence indicates that the accused's responsibility for his acts were so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them was minimal, then a lenient course will be open to the judge. Provided there is no danger of repetition of violence, it will usually be possible to make such an order and will give the accused his freedom possibly with some supervision.

There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order; but in which the accused's degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the Judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused's responsibility and his view as to the period of time, if any, for which the accused will continue to be a danger to the public."

• There is no recommendation for a hospital order in this case and so that does not apply in this case. I note you were suffering from some disease of the mind when the offence was committed and therefore your sense of responsibility was grossly impaired. What is of concern however is that I am not satisfied you will no longer be a danger to the public. No treatment has been prescribed and you are in much the same position you were in prior to the fatal attack on the deceased. The elements of unpredictability and uncertainty remain live issues in your case; there is no assurance or guarantee there will be no repetition of violence, a fortiori, when the attack was unexpected and directed at the very people who were trying to help you. This element of unpredictability is too high a risk for the public to be exposed to.
  
• While in prison however, there should be further diagnosis with the view to accessing medical help as well as spiritual help.
  
• Taking all factors into account, I form the view that a sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate in this case. I should also point out that depending on how successful any treatment that may be prescribed and subject to the report of the Commissioner of Corrections, you may in due time be considered for parole. In the peculiar circumstances of this case therefore, I am not prepared to state any minimum non-parole period but will leave that open to and dependent on the reports on the success and outcome of any treatment that may be prescribed and your rehabilitation.
  
• You have a right of appeal if aggrieved with this sentence.
  

Orders of the Court:

• Impose sentence of life imprisonment.
  
• The period spent in custody is to be taken into account.
  

The Court.