IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT	
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT HONIARA  	
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 133 of 2018

REGINA

-V-

LUKE LALE

Date of Hearing:	April 12, 2018
Date of Sentence:	April 12, 2018
 
Ms. E. Maeue for prosecution 
Accused in person

SENTENCE
	
Background 

1.	The accused, Luke Lale, preferred to proceed with arraignment without a lawyer and therefore pleaded guilty to one count of escaping from lawful custody contrary to section 199 of the Police Act 2013. That offence has a maximum penalty of a fine of $10,000 or 12 months imprisonment.  

2.	There are two sentencing options for me to decide as required under the Act. A fine or imprisonment. My powers are prescribed by that statutory provision and hence, I will apply any of those two prescribed forms of penalties. 

Facts of the case

3.	On Wednesday 21st of February 2018, the accused was detained in one of the cell blocks at the Central Police Station. On duty police officers, Ms. Consita Suluki and Mr. Stanford Martin, were there on that day to look after the detainees from 3:00pm to 11:00pm. 

4.	About 6:00pm, the accused was taken out of the cell in order his details be recorded in a detainee admission form. As he exited the cell (while one of the officers Suluki was busy filling in the form), he dishonestly said something about his slippers to Saluki. He bent down towards the floor intending to hold his slippers and ran quickly towards the door. He hurriedly opened the door and escaped out of the building. 
   
5.	Suluki shouted for him to stop, but he ignored and continued to escape towards the eastern side of the town. He was chased by the police officers and was captured at Hapai area near a Fuel Station opposite to the Qoloni Building.

Remarks on the trend of offending

6.	I start on the premise that apprehension and detaining of suspects are the lawful duties of police officers to ensure the due process of the law takes its course. That duty is important for the maintenance of peace and stability in our societies. Suspects of crimes upon apprehension must not be evasive when confronted by the police. That duty to ensure suspects are dealt with according to law is essential to the rule of law. Therefore, any uncooperative, untoward or disrespectful behaviour by individuals such as escaping from police custody for example, is an act of disrespect on the authority and the rule of law. Suspects of crime must learn to respect and obey police officers since they are the agents of State responsible for the maintenance of law and order.

7.	Public must learn to recognise and appreciate the importance of this duty within the lines of duties of police officers. In countries where crime is so prevalent such as our case, apprehension and detention of suspects is almost an everyday chore and thus comes the need to ensure public respect is fully accorded to the work of police. In order to gain that public respect, police alone cannot do it. It needs the support of the court as the institution responsible to punish offenders who disrespect or defy the works of the police authority.

8.	Unless appropriate punishment is followed, public respect and confidence on the duties of the police authority will continue to be derailed and undermined. Public will easily be informed of this lenient treatments or sentences especially when nowadays court decisions can be accessed and published in the media. This in turn will run the risk that people will not hesitate to disrespect police authority knowing that the sentences will always be lenient.

9.	This case is just one of the many instances of the realities that police continues to face in the administration of apprehension and detention of suspects. It demonstrates in clear terms how accused persons no longer have the fear and respect towards the police and these have been replaced with distrust, disrespect and ridicule. This court continues to resonate that it won’t accept any forms of this behaviour.  

Allocutus

10.	In his allocutus, he said that he escaped from the police because he did not want to be detained in the cell. He was scared of the cell room and so the best way to avoid is to escape. 

11.	I commend him for giving that honest explanation except for this obvious setback. I find his explanation reveals him to be a person who has no respect for the police authority. In fact, police cell is a safe place where his safety and security can be better protected in the event of any public retaliation. I don’t think he will be tortured and tormented inside the cell so that his personal safety could be at stake and the need for him to escape in the circumstance is vital. I find his explanation unconvincing and nonsensical.               

Aggravating factors

12.	From the facts that are before me, I have considered the following as aggravating factors:

(a)	First, he deceived the police officer Consita Suluki by saying words about his slippers which turned out to be untrue. Instead, he escaped out of the Central Police Station. 

(b)	Second, he did not stop escaping away from the building even though he was called upon to stop running by Consita Suluki.

Mitigating and personal factors

13.	For his mitigation, I treat him as a first time offender and the fact that he pleaded guilty to the offence. By pleading guilty, he agrees that he has committed the offence and is willing to accept any form of punishment from the Court. I also take into account that he had apologised and was sorry for what he did to the police.  

14.	I give him full credit to all his mitigating and personal factors. 

15.	I further take into account his concern that he has a one year old baby and that his wife is currently under medical treatment. 

16.	I have considered that explanation and of the view that the blame here must rest on him. He as a mature and family man should not involve in any criminal activity that would risk him from being arrested by police. If he thinks that his baby and wife (who currently is under medical condition) are important than involving in criminal activities then he should have thought about the likely consequences of his actions before doing things. All it requires is for him to use common sense, nothing more nothing less.       

Sentencing Consideration 

17.	The maximum penalty for this offence reflects the strong push by the government of Solomon Islands to discourage and deter escaping from lawful custody. Our legislators, the RSIPF as the institution this Act supports, the public at large and even other countries who have supported one way or the other the enactment of this legislation have put their faith and trust in the judicial arm of the government to objectively enforce the law as ought to be. This is to ensure all the efforts in passing the law and the intention of the law are recognized and not thwarted. Premised on that expectation, my duty is to uphold and implement that expectation objectively.  

18.	When the circumstance of this case is considered, this offence was committed during the course of administering his lawful detention. Moreover, it was deliberately committed to avoid police to detain him for interrogation. To shortly put, it was done to prevent the police from administering the due process of the criminal justice system. In my view, this is a serious act and one that the current Police Act clearly prohibits. 

19.	After carefully considering all these factors and balancing them with the mitigating, personal and aggravating factors, and the need for general and specific deterrence, it is my view that a fine is not appropriate. I reach this decision in light of the nature of this case and the aggravating factors being identified. Therefore, the appropriate option for the Court is to impose a custodial sentence. 

SENTENCING ORDERS OF THE COURT

20.	When all the factors alluded to are considered, it is my view that the starting point for this case is 5 months imprisonment. To reflect his aggravating, mitigating and personal factors, I therefore sentence him to a resulting term of 5 months imprisonment.
 
21.	Any period spent in custody is to be deducted from this term of imprisonment. 

22.	14 days right of appeal by any aggrieved party to this matter.

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