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

R v Taliae [2024] SBHC 15; HCSI-CRC 425 of 2023 (14 February 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 425 of 2023

REX

V

JOHN PITU TALIAE

Date of Hearing: 8 February 2024
Date of Judgment: 14 February 2024

Kelesi A & Tonawane for the Crown
Kwalai D & Aisa T for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

Maina PJ:

1. You, John Pitu Taliae was charged with one count of murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code (Cap 26) for the murder of deceased Mrs Soga Duri.
2. The incident happened on Sunday 9th April 2023 at Saasvele Village, Roviana Lagoon, Western Province.
3. When the plea or arraignment was put you on 7^th February 2024 you defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of murder.

Summary of Agreed Facts

4. The Defendant is John Pitu Taliae and was 24 at the time of the incident and the Deceased was Soga Duri. Both were in a relationship for three months before the incident.
5. Prior to their relationship, the deceased was in a relationship with an Asian and had a child with him.
6. During their three-month relationship, the deceased and the defendant would frequently have argument against each other always.
7. Prior to the incident, on 8 Aril 2023, they had a row. The deceased asked the Defendant repeatedly to buy a perfume for her.
8. The Defendant replied the deceased and told her to wait until the morning of the next day.
9. On the next day, Sunday 9^th April, the defendant attended the church service and then went back home. Upon arriving home, the defendant and the deceased had an argument again.
10. There was a fundraising held at Sasavele Village, and after the Sunday Prayer Service, people went to attend the fundraising at the community house.
11. During their argument, the deceased raised the topic about the perfume again with the defendant.
12. The Defendant responded and went to get our money at the market stall. The deceased was angry, told him to forget about it, and said that the defendant was not like her past Asian partner. She said that the Asian was a better man and would buy her anything she wanted.
13. The Defendant got very angry and blacked out, took a hammer and strike it against the deceased’s head three times.
14. The deceased fell go the ground and laid there unconscious.
15. The Defendant then ran away and then called his brother, Anjo on a mobile phone and told him to check the deceased.
16. The brother then told Desmond to check on the deceased, which he then found her lying unconscious.
17. He then called some women who were present at that time to go and check the deceased. The women and some men arranged for a canoe and took the deceased to Hellena Goldie Hospital at Munda. She was examine by a doctor and then transported to Gizo hospital where another doctor then examine her again. She was pronounced death later on the same day and medical reports were made by the doctors who examiner her.
18. The Defendant after the incident paddled from his home village to Munda Police station and handed himself over to the Police.
19. The Defendant has been in remand ever since and he Defendant has no prior convictions.

Formal Conviction

20. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and when the fact was read to him and he understood it and stated that the facts is true and correct.
21. I am satisfied and find the defendant John Pitu Taliae guilty upon own plea and accordingly convicted him on the charge of murder and according the sentence for you is life imprisonment.

Parole

22. The life imprisonment for murder is mandatory sentence. However with requirement of law under the Correctional Service Act 2007 and sub regulation 5 (1) of the Correctional Services (Parole) Amendment Regulation 2020, the Court of Appeal Ludawane v Regina^[1] set out the process to accommodate the requirement of the law.
23. The Ludawane case the Court of Appeal stated that upon the conviction of murder, the sentencing court is oblige to state what in view should be the minimum period of sentence or non-parole period to be served before the prisoner is considered or eligible for parole.

The Issue

24. The issue is what should be the starting point for consideration of minimum term of non-parole period for the prisoner.

Submissions by Counsels

25. Both the DPP and Defence Counsel relied or used the same argument as for the Rex V Jeffery Gaza that I have just delivered the sentence with the non-parole period.
26. The DPP Kelesi refers to the Ludawane v Regina case and he labelled as it change the sentencing of murder by the set or decide the life imprisonment with the non-parole period.
27. He pointed out the process set by the Court of Appeal for the sentencing court to take into account and in particular what to decide on the starting point.
28. DPP also refers to minimum term in the Correctional Services (Parole) Regulation 2020 at regulation 6 to be set by the court before a prisoner may apply for Parole.
29. The DPP submits the plea of guilty and no previous conviction of the defendant as the mitigation factors and raised these matters as aggravating factors:
    • (i) An existence of duty and trust although they were in de facto relationship.
    • (ii) The used of dangerous weapon, a hammer which the defendant used and struck the victim three times with it,
    • (iii) It is serious and reflected in the medical report tendered with the facts.
    • (iv) The deceased was pregnant 25-26 weeks fetus expelled with bleeding. A loss of life that beginning to form.
30. DPP Kelesi submitted that the court must condemn the offence that the accused person did and must denounce the actions. He must be held accountable for the terrible harm he did to the deceased and her family. The court must do that on behalf of the community, victim and her family. A need for the protection of the community and in particular vulnerable people and others who may be minded to the act of the accused.
31. With the three categories set in the Ludawane v Regina case, DPP submitted for the aggravating features, in particular the used of weapon, the hammer and struck three times the deceased woman with it raise the seriousness of the crime and put his crime in categories 2 with 15/16 years.
32. DPP Kelesi submitted that from the facts and offending by the defendant the starting point for non-parole period is 15 years.
33. With the submission for the murder’s minimum term in the sentence, Defence Counsel Kwalai refers to the case in Taiga V R^[2] when the Court of Appeal put the approach to the sentencing in murder cases.
    • “Murder – that is, causing the death of another person with intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm - is always a heinous offence. Solomon Islands law provides that an adult offender who is convicted of murder must always be sentenced to life imprisonment”.
34. However, Counsel Kwalai referred to the cases of Ludawane v Regina and Taiga V R and said the sentencing courts have some discretion when it comes to fixing a non-parole period that a prisoner must serve before he is eligible to apply for parole. Counsel also referred to the provision in the sub regulation 5 (1) of the Correctional Services (Parole) Amendment Regulation 2020 that refers to the minimum term of imprisonment set by the court.
35. Counsel Kwalai stated that his client has pleaded guilty to the charge murder and has no previous conviction. He refers to Ludawane v Regina when the Court of Appeal held that for a non-parole term the sentencing court should be fixed as follows:
    • (i) Starting point,
    • (ii) Increase for aggravating factors,
    • (iii) Deceased for mitigating factors,
36. Defence counsel further refer to the categories that were set out by the Court of Appeal in the case Ludawane v Regina.
    • (i) Those that attract the normal starting point should be 12 years
    • (ii) The higher starting point attract 15/16 years and
    • (iii) The very serious cases attracting the higher starting point of 15 – 16 years.
37. The Defence submitted that the appropriate starting point should be 12 years.

The Court

38. For this related issue I have discussed and considered this question in the case of Rex V Jeffery Gaza^[3], who had pleaded guilty on the charge of murder.
39. In the cases of Ludawane v Regina and Taiga v R referred to by both counsels, the Court of Appeal sets out clearly the format or three categories as noted above for consideration when determining the minimum term of murder sentences. Each type of murder sentences depends in its seriousness and or by the gravity of the offending.
40. The court cases stressed on the question of fixing a minimum period for the sentencing court to focus on the level of seriousness of the murder committed. On that basis, the court would determine the starting point by the esteems on the culpability of the offender when the prisoner committed the offence with any harm caused, intention to cause and or the likely cause.
41. With this case, the prisoner struck the deceased three times with the hammer and such bears here level of cruelty on his part to the deceased. From the facts, medical report and circumstances of his offending, I am satisfied that the starting point on the non-parole term is 15 years.
42. Noting the starting point is now fixed, the court must now determine take the non-parole with consideration of the mitigating and aggravating factors.
43. Credit for the prisoner’s plea of guilty, no previous conviction and surrendering himself to the Police and I consider all these in determining this matter
44. The offender’s culpability was high and the victim was vulnerable as being woman. The struck of a female three times with the hammer for just argument with a harmless female shows the seriousness and worse outcome on part of the prisoner.
45. Upon assessing the facts, circumstances of the prisoner’s offending with a loss of life and the submission by the counsels, I am satisfied the minimum term of non-parole to be served by prisoner John Pitu Taliae before eligible for parole is 16 years.

Orders of the Court

1. The accused John Pitu Taliae is sentence to life imprisonment.
2. Minimum period to be served by John Pitu Taliae is 16 years before eligible for parole,
3. Sentence to commence from the day when the prisoner was taken into custody.
4. No further orders.

THE COURT
Hon. Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge

^[1] [2017] SBCA 23, SICOA – CRAC of 2016, (13^th October 2017)
^[2] [2023] SBCA 5; SICOA-CAC 33 of 2022 (28 April 2023)
^[3] High Court Criminal Case No. 425 of 2023