HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Manebosa 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	15 December 2022	
		
Parties: 	Rex v Godfrey Manebosa	
		
Date of hearing: 	17 November 2022, 13 and 14 December 2022	
		
Court file number(s): 	182 of 2021	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Lawry; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The Defendant is sentenced to a term of five years loss of liberty.
2. That period will be divided so that he is to be released on 23 December 2022 into the care of his mother.
3. The balance will be spent in the community under the supervision of Pastor Nelson Rooney who will direct where he is to live and with whom he may not associate.
4. During the time to be served in the community he is to undertake such community work as directed by Pastor Nelson Rooney at the Church, local schools or other places as may be directed. The total community work should not exceed twenty hours in any one week. The amount of community work directed will be dependent on whether the Defendant is able to resume his education or obtain employment.
5. Throughout the period served in the community, the Accused is not to consume any alcohol nor shall he consume any illicit drug.
6. During the period served in the community, Pastor Nelson Rooney is to provide reports to the Registrar of the High Court concerning the progress of the Accused and his compliance with the conditions imposed. The first report is to be provided to the Registrar of the High Court three months after his release from prison. Pastor Nelson Rooney is to provide reports to the Registrar after a further period of three months and thereafter to provide reports at the conclusion of each 6 month period until the Defendant has completed three years supervision in the community.	
		
Representation: 	Mr S Tonowane for the Crown 
Mr F Kama for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Panel Code S 224	
		
Cases cited:	Ti’i v Regina [2017] SBCA 6, Fo’oka v Regina [2014] SBCA 10, Regina v Kada [2008] SBCA 9, Selo v Regina [2017] SBCA 17, Kilatu v Regina [2005] SBHC 118, R v Koethivoa [2022] SBHC 107	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 182 OF 2021

REX 

V

GODFREY MANEBOSA 

Date of Hearing: 17 November, 13 and 14 December 2022
Date of Decision: 15 December 2022

Mr S Tonowane for the Crown 
Mr F Kama for the Defendant 
SENTENCE 
Introduction
1. 	The Accused Godfrey Manebosa has pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous harm with intent to cause grievous harm contrary to section 224 of the Penal Code. He was previously charged with attempted murder but once the charge was reduced to the present charge he pleaded guilty. He now appears for sentence.
Facts
2. 	On 26 December 2020 he was drinking alcohol with others. The group he was with arrived at the village where the victim lived. The victim was sitting under a tree with three other men. The Defendant and three others from his group approached them. The defendant and two others with him were all drunk and each of them held 26 inch bush knives. The three men with the victim then walked away. The victim bent down to pick up a fruit leaf. The Defendant swung his bush knife at the face of the victim. The agreed summary of facts records that the Defendant missed the victim who fell down and then tried to run away. He called out for help. The Defendant ran after him and cut him again on his face. He cut him at the back of his shoulder. The Defendant then took a piece of wood and struck him two more times, once on his back by the shoulder and once to his stomach. Another from the Defendant’s group joined in and cut the victim on the back of his head. The agreed summary of facts records that when the son of the victim came to assist the victim a third member of the Defendant’s group attacked the son with his bush knife, cutting off the hand of that person as he tried to protect his own neck.
3. 	The victim sustained multiple knife injuries to his face, right shoulder, scalp head and forearm. He required surgery and remained in hospital for 14 days.
4. 	The Defendant was still 17 years old at the time of the attack. He was arrested on 29 December 2020 and has been in custody since that time.
Aggravating factors
5. 	The aggravating factors include the sustained nature of the attack. When the victim (a 58 year old man) tried to flee, the Defendant pursued him and continued to attack him. While the Defendant was the principle attacker he attacked as part of a group.
6. 	The victim was relaxing at his own village when he was attacked.
7. 	The Defendant and his group were all intoxicated at the time.
Mitigating factors
8. 	The Accused has pleaded guilty to the offence. He has expressed remorse which I accept is genuine remorse. That has been expressed to the social welfare officers, and by his plea and by the reconciliation process.
9. 	His family have paid some compensation to the victim. The submissions from defence counsel say that there has been some retaliation that the victim’s family have not paid compensation for. This submission raises concern about how genuine the remorse expressed may be.
10. 	The Defendant was only 17 at the time of his offending. He was a student in form 4 at Sir Jacob Community School. It is submitted that he has good prospects for rehabilitation. It is said he has learned from his mistake in prison. It is difficult to know the basis of this submission as the attack he committed was ferocious, sustained and for no apparent reason.
11. 	He has not had any previous conviction.
12. 	Counsel has asked for a reduction because of delay. I do not accept that there has been an unreasonable delay in the circumstances although he has been detained when Solomon Islands struggled with the effects of COVID-19 and impact that has had on the Court processes.
Starting point
13. 	The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment. However because the Defendant was aged 17 at the time of his offending he is able to be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of section 16 of the Juvenile Offenders Act.
14. 	In Ti’i v Regina [2017] SBCA 6 the Court of Appeal dealt with a juvenile on a charge of murder. The Court affirmed the goals of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. At paragraph [25] the Court adopted was said in Fo’oka v Regina [2014] SBCA 10 which included:
	“The common feature which appears repeatedly in the previous sentences brought to our attention is the concern shown by the court for the rehabilitation and reintegration of the juvenile into the community. The sentence of any young person convicted of a grave crime such as murder must be imprisonment or detention but, even if the incarceration is for some years, he will still be relatively young on his release. The courts have tended to allow his release into the community as soon as possible in order to encourage effective rehabilitation and reintegration. This has been achieved by combining the order under 16 (j) with one under 16 (d). The younger the offender, the higher the proportion of the sentence which has been ordered to be spent in the care of another person.”
Starting point
15. 	For an attack such as the present the Court of Appeal has given guidance in Selo v Regina [2017] SBCA 17. That involved a group who involved themselves in a robbery of a security guard transferring money at a bank. The offender used a bush knife causing grievous harm to the guard. For the charge brought under section 224 the Court confirmed a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment. The offender had pleaded guilty to the offence however the discount given to him was deducted from the concurrent sentence imposed for the robbery. The Crown has referred the Court to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Regina v Kada [2008] SBCA 9 which involved a group attack in the course of a burglary. For the offence brought under section 224 for his part in causing grievous harm to two victims his sentence was increased to 9 years imprisonment. He was aged 18 at the time of his offending. I regard his offending as more serious than yours but the sentence of 9 years was imposed after taking into account his guilty plea.
16. 	Counsel has referred to the case of Kilatu v Regina [2005] SBHC 118. I regard the facts of that case as being less serious than in your case. It was a charge brought under section 226 rather than 224 of the Penal Code.
17. 	He has also referred to a recent case of R v Koethivoa [2022] SBHC 107 where a juvenile was sentenced for a charge of murder. The culpability in your case is greater but the consequences were less serious in that your victim survived. In my view a similar approach may be taken.
Discussion 
18. 	After having initially heard submissions from counsel the Court adjourned to enable the Defendant’s counsel to obtain a report from the Social Welfare Division of the Ministry of Health and Medical Services. That agency has provided a helpful detailed report. It indicates that he has been influenced by others, that he is remorseful and that he realises he may have lost opportunities to pursue some of his hopes for the future.  It does not explain however how a young man could attack a 58 year old man using a 26 inch bush knife and having swung the knife at the face of his victim pursued him and continued his attack. The attack was one when the victim could well have died.
19. 	In imposing sentence I take a starting point of 9 years imprisonment before considering mitigating factors. For his guilty plea and remorse the sentence is reduced by three years. For his youth and other remaining mitigating factors a further year is deducted. That leaves a final sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Section 16 of the Juvenile Offender’s Act allows the Court to direct that part of the sentence can be served in the community. I regard that as appropriate in the Defendant’s circumstances. He has been on remand in custody for nearly two years. Allowing for remission to which he would be entitled that is the equivalent of a three year sentence.
20. 	The Defendant will have the opportunity to put something back to his community. The Church Pastor/ District Pastor for the East Honiara District of the Seventh Day Adventist Church has agreed to provide a supervisory role for the Defendant. The Defendant will undertake community work as directed by Pr Nelson Rooney. Pastor Rooney is to provide reports to the Registrar of the High Court as to the progress of the Defendant.
Orders
1. 	The Defendant is sentenced to a term of five years loss of liberty.
2. 	That period will be divided so that he is to be released on 23 December 2022 into the care of his mother.
3. 	The balance will be spent in the community under the supervision of Pastor Nelson Rooney who will direct where he is to live and with whom he may not associate.
4. 	During the time to be served in the community he is to undertake such community work as directed by Pastor Nelson Rooney at the Church, local schools or other places as may be directed. The total community work should not exceed twenty hours in any one week. The amount of community work directed will be dependent on whether the Defendant is able to resume his education or obtain employment.
5. 	Throughout the period served in the community, the Accused is not to consume any alcohol nor shall he consume any illicit drug.
6. 	During the period served in the community, Pastor Nelson Rooney is to provide reports to the Registrar of the High Court concerning the progress of the Accused and his compliance with the conditions imposed. The first report is to be provided to the Registrar of the High Court three months after his release from prison. Pastor Nelson Rooney is to provide reports to the Registrar after a further period of three months and thereafter to provide reports at the conclusion of each 6 month period until the Defendant has completed three years supervision in the community.
By the Court
Justice Howard Lawry PJ
Puisne Judge