IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 1220 of 2017

REGINA

V

YAXLEY TONTO

Date of sentencing hearing:	December 7, 2017
Date of sentence:		December 12, 2017	

Mr. Mosese for Prosecution 
Accused in person
SENTENCE
	
1.	The accused, Yaxley Tonto, was arrested by police and appeared in court for a remand application. He decided to take his plea without any legal advice to the following charges:

(a)	Burglary, contrary to section 299 (a) of the Penal Code. This incident relates to the break and entering for the purposes of stealing that occurred in the kitchen house of Lesly Ramo on the 6th of November 2017. It has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 

(b)	Larceny in dwelling house, contrary to section 269 (a) of the Penal Code. This incident relates to the stealing of properties belonged and inside the dwelling house of Sardius Funu on the 22nd of November 2017. It has a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

(c)	Burglary, contrary to section 299 (a) of the Penal Code. This incident involves the break and entering for the purposes of stealing that occurred inside the kitchen of Daniel Namosuia. It has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

2.	For the first offending, he stole 1 x generator costs $2,800 and 2 x cooking pots cost $200. Only the generator was recovered from the offending. For the second offending, he stole 2 x solar panels, 2 x cooking pots, 1 x touch screen mobile phone and 1 blue-tooth speaker. The value of all these properties were about $5,000. Only the blue-tooth speaker was recovered after the offending. For the final offending, he and another accomplice John Taedo stole sets of Vanuatu cooking pots, spoon, dishes, knifes and a large Telecom umbrella. All the properties were not recovered anymore. 

3.	The accused is a 23 year old young and single person. His parents are in Makira while he lived with some of his friends at the Botanical garden area behind the Rove Correctional Service in Honiara. He is unemployed and said that he “has to steal in order to survive.” He also said that he has close relatives living in Honiara but he was ashamed to visit them. 

4.	Regarding his statement that he has to steal in order to survive, I think that is a lame excuse. There are some youths like him who were able to involve in other legal activities and make a living. He as an energetic young person has no exception to that. However, his explanation that he has to steal for his survival is very concerning because this is an admission that he will continue to steal in future if he still resides in Honiara. In my view, he has posed great risks to the properties of those who live closer to Botanical garden area or wherever he may live if he continues to live under this poverty or appalling circumstance in Honiara. 

5.	I find that he was just lazy and addicted to stealing in order to get fast or quick money through selling of the stolen properties. That was why he preferred not to involve in other lawful ways to get money but instead, he preferred to live or survive on stealing.

6.	The accused should respect others private residential areas and properties. He has absolutely no right to enter into their premises without their express permission for the sake of stealing their valuable properties. This is a contemptable or shameful behaviour and one that I believe every single law abiding resident of Honiara or even in the provinces has very much hated.    

7.	If he finds Honiara town is so expensive then the right decision for him is to simply return back to his village in order to avoid the costs and hardships of living in Honiara. Honiara town is an expensive place to live in so I think it will only make sense for people who are working and participate meaningfully to the formal and informal economy should live and work here. Otherwise, those who are unemployed and come here purposely to roam the streets aimlessly should be encouraged to return back to their villages where live is simple and cheap.    

8.	Stealing carried out by break and entering or invading other people’s residential areas is now very common in Honiara. It is so prevalent to the extent that private residential areas are always targeted and no longer safe from the evils of thieves. Valuable properties and even large sum of monies simply vanished or stolen at the whims of thieves and to some victims, the loss of their properties brought upon their lives by thieves is unbearable and unfortunate. 

9.	I have observed that in many theft cases involving young people, they were committed mainly by unemployed youths who usually lived with relatives in Honiara and do not live under the care, supervision and discipline of their parents. This is the reality check of the current trend of those who committed theft offences in Honiara. This calls for families to do more in parental or guardian teaching or disciplining of their children at home for the need not to involve in illegal activities that would risk them going to jail.      

10.	The law set out in Stanley Bade v R for sentencing of burglary offenders is 2 years for adult offenders when there is no aggravating factor. In this case, the accused is already a young adult person and of course, there are few aggravating factors present herein. When one looks at the facts tendered by the prosecution which I adopted them in their entirety and do not need to restate them again would uncover that there was preplanning involved in those offending since he had to select other people’s residence and made his way therein. Also, most of the properties were not recovered. On the final occasion he was in the company of John Taedo who is still at large and the offences were repetitive theft offences. With these aggravating factors, they call for a sentence above 2 years imprisonment.

11.	I understand the accused is not a first time offender since he just released from his 10 months imprisonment term for a simple larceny charge imposed on him on the 2nd of February 2017 at the Central Magistrate’s Court. He didn’t learn the anguish of the prison live and continued to steal. The previous imprisonment term he served has no deterrent effect on him or simply meaningless in other words. This calls for an adjusted or elevated sentence and one that will at least bring on him a message that this round would be his last to see the court.  

12.	I take into account his guilty pleas and his remorse. I also understand he is a 23 year old young single person who lives in Honiara without the supervision of his parents. I also take into account his unfortunate or claimed poverty condition or situation. I take all these into account and give full credit for these mitigating and personal factors for purposes of his sentence.  

13.	My judicial role is to deter crime and to adjust the approach of sentencing offenders like the accused herein who continues to cross the red line by committing more or less the similar offence he had previously served in jail. 

14.	The sentence that I will impose on the accused must able to teach him a lesson that break and entering of other people’s private residential houses for the sake of stealing is an abhorrent and the most hateful crime within the category of theft offences. It is an evil activity to indulge in especially for him as a growing young 23 year old single person.  

15.	I sentenced him as an adult since he is already above 18 years of age. His sentence are as follows:

(a)	Burglary, contrary to section 299 (a) of the Penal Code (6/11/2017 incident) – 2 years and 2 months imprisonment.

(b)	Larceny in dwelling house, contrary to section 269 (a) of the Penal Code (22/11/2017 incident) – 1 ½ year imprisonment.

(c)	Burglary, contrary to section 299 (a) of the Penal Code (29/11/2017) – 2 and ½ years imprisonment. I consider this offending is aggravated because he never learnt and continued to indulge in carrying burglary offending against other people’s properties.     
   
16.	All sentence will run consecutively since they were committed on separate occasions and against different victims.

17.	A total of 6 years and 2 months is imposed.

18.	Period spent in custody is to be deducted.

19.	Right of appeal applies to any aggrieved party. 

20.	Order accordingly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COURT
Augustine Aulanga – Principal Magistrate