HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Manu 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	9 March 2020	
		
Parties: 	Regina v Fred Manu	
		
Date of hearing: 	17 February 2020	
		
Court file number(s): 	189 of 2019	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Bird PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	The Defendant is convicted of one count of manslaughter contrary to section 199 of the Penal Code,
Term of 7 ½ years’ imprisonment is imposed on the Defendant.
The period spent in pre-Trial Custody is to be deducted from the total sentence 	
		
Representation: 	Mr. A E Kelesi for the Prosecution 
Mr. B Ifuto’o for the Accused 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code, s 200, s199	
		
Cases cited:	Regina v Asuana [1990] SILR 201, Popoe v Regina [2015] CRAC 42, Marangi v The State [2002] PGSC15	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 189 of 2019

REGINA 

V

FRED MANU
Accused 

Date of Hearing: 17 February 2020
Date of Decision: 9 March 2020

Mr. A E Kelesi for the Prosecution 
Mr. B Ifuto’o for the Accused 
SENTENCE 
1. 	The Defendant was originally charged with one count murder contrary to Section 200 of the Penal Code.
2. 	A nolle prosequi was filed in respect of the murder charge by the prosecution on 19th September 2019. In respect of that nolle prosequi, the Defendant was discharged from the murder charge.
3. 	On the same date, being 19th September 2019, an amended information on a charge of manslaughter contrary to Section 199 of the Penal Code was filed by the prosecution. 
4. 	You have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter on the 26th November 2019. I now convict you accordingly.
5. 	The facts of your case are as follows:-
	On Wednesday 2nd January 2019, you walked towards Uncle Alick Store at King George Area, East Honiara when you met three men who were drunk in front of the Solrice area. You knew one of them as Don. You asked to exchange slippers with Don. At that time, Don was wearing a pair of haviana slipper and you were wearing another pair.
6. 	Don refused to give you the haviana slipper and you were leaving. Don then punched you and there was a fight between you. You then ran back to your house and took a small kitchen knife and returned to where Don was.
7. 	Don then approached you and a fight broke out again between the two of you about why Don had punched him earlier.
8. 	During that altercation, you stabbed Don on his right backside using the knife you took from your house. You then fled the scene and threw the knife as you were running towards the rubbish dump site.
9. 	Don’s wife took him to Kukum Clinic by bus. On arrival at the Clinic, it was crowded with people so she took him to the National Referral Hospital. Don died shortly thereafter.
10. 	A post mortem was conducted on the deceased. According to the report the cause of death was severe hypovolemic shock due to haemorrhage from the chest injuries.
11. 	The offence of manslaughter is very serious and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
12. 	The court has heard submissions from counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defence and had noted what had been said about your case. The following are matters for mitigation on your behalf:-
i) 	You have pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter at an earliest opportunity. This had shown not only remorse but an acceptance of your culpability in the offence as well as your willingness to accept the consequences of your action. Your early plea has also saves the court’s time and resources in conducting a trial.
ii) 	You have no previous convictions.
iii) 	You are a youthful offender. You are twenty years old and top some extent, explains your offending.
iv) 	You have co-operated with the police during investigation.
v) 	A substantial amount of compensation by paid by your father to the deceased relatives as a result of your offending.
vi) 	You have been in custody since January 2019.
13. 	The aggravating features in your case is the taking away of a human life through your actions. That a weapon was used during the offending.
14. 	The facts had revealed that on the day of your offending, the deceased was drunk with two other individuals. There is no evidence if you were also drunk and on that note you are hereby assumed to be sober.
15. 	An argument of a very trivial nature had developed between the deceased and yourself which had led into a fight. Being sober on that occasion, you should have been in a better position for restraint.
16. 	Instead of restraining yourself, you have nonetheless run back to your house and took a small kitchen knife and went back to the scene. That act of running back to your house to get a small kitchen knife is inexcusable in the circumstances. The deceased was not armed on that occasion.
17. 	The use of a weapon against an unarmed individual is unthinkable and should not have happened at all.
18. 	I have taken into account the mitigating factors that have been said on your behalf by your lawyer. I have also taken into account the substantial amount of compensation paid by your family to the relatives of the deceased.
19. 	In your case, you were provoked into committing the offence through the action of the deceased. He punched you during a fight. Your action in using a weapon, being a kitchen knife is not excused. The deceased was not armed at the material time, and the use of a knife on that fateful was uncalled for and unnecessary in all circumstances. I am guided by the case of Regina v Asuana [1990] SILR 201 in relation to the weight that the court should place on compensation payment as a mitigating factor.
20. 	Your youthfulness could have contributed to your actions but that does not mitigate your culpability to a large extent. You could have foreseen that the use of the kitchen knife could have been fatal on the deceased.
21. 	In considering the appropriate sentence that this court should impose on you, I am guided by the case of Popoe v Regina [2015] CRAC 42 of 2014. In that case the Court of Appeal said inter alia “when a weapon was used in the offending, a sentence of imprisonment of 6 years or more have been imposed as a starting point.”
22. 	Another comparative case on sentencing in manslaughter case is the case of Anna Max Marangi v The State, [2002] PGSC 15. In that case, it was stated that in an uncontested case, with ordinary mitigating factors and no aggravating factors, a point of 7 years up to 12 years. A sentence below 7 years should be rarely imposed except in exceptional cases where there are special mitigating factors.
23. 	Taking into account the guiding principles in the above cases, the appropriate sentence that I will impose on you for the offence of manslaughter is one of 7 years imprisonment. The period spent in pre-trial custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.
24. 	In your case, the court views your action of running back to your house to get a small kitchen knife and the subsequent unlawful use of that knife on the deceased as very serious in nature.
25. 	Taking into account the guiding principles in the above cases, and the seriousness of your unlawful actions, the appropriate sentence that I will impose on you for the offence of manslaughter is one of 7 ½ years imprisonment. The period spent in pre-trial custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.
Orders of the court
i) 	The Defendant is convicted of one count of manslaughter contrary to Section 199 of the Penal Code.
ii) 	The term of 7 ½ years imprisonment is imposed on the Defendant.
iii) 	The period spent in pre-trail custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge