HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Filoa Aitorea 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	13 November 2020	
		
Parties: 	Regina v Filoa Aitorea	
		
Date of hearing: 	12 November 2020	
		
Court file number(s): 	213 of 2020	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Palmer; CJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. Convict the defendant of the offence of manslaughter.
2. Impose sentence of 2 years.
3. Direct that the period spent in remand in custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.
4. Having been satisfied that a substantial part of the sentence has been served, direct that the defendant be released at the rising of the Court.	
		
Representation: 	Mr. J. W Zoze for the Crown
Mr. G. Male for the Defendant	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	Popoe v Regina [2016] SBCA 20, Regina v Batalau’ia [2016] SBHC 29	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 213 of 2020

REGINA 

V

FILOA AITOREA

HEARING: 12 November 2020
SENTENCE: 13 November 2020

Mr. J. W Zoze for the Crown 
Mr. G. Male for the Defendant 
Palmer CJ.
1. 	You have pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter, which is a very serious charge. Its' seriousness is reflected in the maximum sentence, a life imprisonment which can be imposed by the court in extreme cases, depending on the circumstances of each case and the presence of aggravating and mitigating features.
2. 	There are varying degrees of manslaughter, which the courts have dealt with and imposed varying sentences ranging from 2 – 10 years, depending on the seriousness of the facts of each case and level of culpability. Each case should be dealt with on its own merits and appropriate sentences imposed, for sentencing as often repeated is not a mathematical formula. However, cases of similar facts are often treated in a similar way and there is good basis for comparison of cases to be considered when making submissions for sentence.
3. 	I note the tragic circumstances of offending in this case, which involved the altercation between two brothers, the Deceased being under the influence of alcohol, was abusive and using swearing and threatening words in public and in the presence of the Defendant and his family, damaged the property of the Defendant, his fence and was armed in public as well with a small kitchen knife.
4. 	I note the Defendant initially tried to remonstrate with the Deceased but then was provoked, became upset, following which a confrontation ensued, resulting in a struggle between them and the stabbing of the Deceased by the Defendant. It appears during the struggle the Defendant was able to grab the knife from the Deceased and used it to stab him with.
5. 	While in Popoe v. Regina, a starting point of 6 years or more may be imposed as a starting point where a weapon was used in the offending, the circumstances of this case showed that the weapon, a knife was used only after the Defendant had seized it from the Deceased during the struggle and used it to stab the Deceased with. A starting point therefore of 4 years would be more appropriate in the circumstances of this case.
6. 	I give credit for an early guilty plea, saving court time, resources and expense in avoiding trial and saving prosecution witnesses from having to come to court to recount the tragic events in court of what happened that day between the two brothers.
7. 	A guilty plea is consistent with remorse and being sorry for your actions and accepting the consequences of your actions which have resulted in the death and loss of your brother. I note what your counsel says in your mitigation that you have been mentally and emotionally affected by the tragic events of that day, and while in prison, you have had the opportunity to reflect and ponder on the events of that fateful day and now realise that there are things that you could have done differently. Instead of losing your cool and reacting to the situation and entering into a confrontation, you could have pulled back, called the police, or simply remonstrated with him to stop his rude and bad behaviour. Dealing with a person under the influence of alcohol can be quite difficult and at times will require a lot of restraint and control on your part but this is what the rule of law and justice in our society is about, being able to resolve such disturbances and commotion in the community in a peaceful and lawful means.
8. 	I give credit for your previous good behaviour and character, that you have no previous convictions, and that this is your first time to appear before the court. You are a young man with a young family, a wife and a young son who need you and have been affected adversely by this incident, as well as an aging mother, who also relies on you for her sustenance and support and as a consequence too has also been affected adversely by this incident.
9. 	I am satisfied your prospects of rehabilitation, reformation and reintegration back into your community are good. You not only have a bright future and opportunity ahead of you but to change and make amends to your life and seek to contribute to your family and community on your release, and to show that you are a responsible person.
10. 	I note too that the matter has been settled in custom amongst your family members and the community and reconciliation facilitated not only to restore peace and harmony but to facilitate your acceptance, reintegration and restoration back into your community. I note what your counsel has said in your mitigation that you have had the support of your family from day one, and are willing and looking forward to supporting you on your release from prison.
11. 	I note the circumstances of offending as set out in the summary of facts put before the court, not only showed an absence of malice, but an element of provocation. That distinguishes this case from other similar cases that have been succinctly cited and referred to by counsel for my consideration in their submissions. I thank Counsel for those submissions and in particular providing a summary of other similar incidents of manslaughter.
12. 	I note the presence of an aggravating feature, the use of a weapon, a kitchen knife, however, I am satisfied it was not deliberate, you did not take this with you to attack the Deceased, you accessed it during the struggle with the Deceased and used it against him in the heat of the moment. The killing was not planned or deliberate, it occurred on the spur of the moment, during the course of a heated argument with the Deceased and is a one off event.
13. 	I give credit for the period spent in custody. Balancing all mitigating factors and aggravating features, I am satisfied 2 years should be deducted from the starting point of 4 years leaving a sentence of 2 years imprisonment to be served.
14. 	I am satisfied that you have served to date a total of 15 months and 5 days, which amounts to a substantial period of the sentence being spent in pre-trial custody. Accordingly, I direct that it is to be deducted from the total sentence imposed, and further direct that the defendant be released at the rising of the Court.
Orders of the Court:
1.	Convict the defendant of the offence of manslaughter.
2.	Impose sentence of 2 years.
3.	Direct that the period spent in remand in custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.
4.	Having been satisfied that a substantial part of the sentence has been served, direct that the defendant be released at the rising of the Court.
The Court.