Queen v Kwaimani [2008] SBHC 16; HCSI-CRC 355 of 2004 (2 April 2008)

Date of Judgment: 2 April 2008

Ms Kleinig for the Crown
Ms M. Lidimani for L. Kwaimani

1	Lemuel Kwaimani appears for sentence for the offence of doing grievous harm to Moses Garu on 10 May 2000.
2	He had denied the charge, but following a trial he was found guilty.
3	Mr. Kwaimani was and apparently still is a taxi driver, and on 10 May 2000 he had visited the Malaita Eagle Force Central Lions Camp in Honiara, looking for a wantok. While there he was told to drive 3 men in his taxi to the DBSI Bank in Chinatown. The men were armed with bushknives and an axe, and as I have found Mr. Kwaimani knew this.
4	At the Bank Mr. Kwaimani waited outside while the 3 men went in and attacked the Bank Manager Moses Garu with their weapons. He was badly injured and suffered life threatening injuries.
5	Following the attack the men rushed back to Mr. Kwaimani’s taxi, which was repositioned for a fast getaway. They were then driven at speed by Mr. Kwaimani back to the Lions Camp, saying on the way that they had just killed a man. After arrival there Mr. Kwaimani remained at the Lions Camp for some 20 minutes, overhearing the men recounting what had occurred inside the Bank.
6	As to the facts in Mr. Kwaimani’s favour, I take into account the following:
		(i)	There was no evidence that he knew who the target was at the Bank or the reason for going to the Bank to commit violence. In other words, he was not involved in any of the original planning.
		(ii)	He was not one of the actual attackers.
		(iii)	There is an element of Mr. Kwaimani having been in the wrong place at the wrong time. In other words, if he had not called at the Camp that morning, it is likely that he would not have become involved in the incident at all.
		(iv)	This may have been an element of coercion by the men in having him drive them to the Bank. In other words, he may have perceived that a refusal by him to do so would have attracted the disfavour of those at the camp.
7	Also, in terms of Mr. Kwaimani’s personal history and circumstances, I take into account:
		(i)	He was a relatively young first time offender at the time of the incident. He was 22 years old at the time of the offending, and is now about 30 years old.
		(ii)	He is married and the only earner in his family.
		(iii)	He has no previous convictions.
		(iv)	He appears to be otherwise of good character – this is apparent from the references provided to the Court.
		(v)	There appears to be no real risk of reoffending – there is no suggestion of any offending in the 8 years since the incident. In this way the delay since his offending is relevant.
8	Having said that, there is no escaping the fact that as the driver Mr. Kwaimani actively participated in an enterprise which involved a vicious attack on a person by 3 men using weapons, leaving that innocent victim seriously injured. Had he not been rushed to hospital by others, it is clear he would have died.
9	While there has been some delays in bringing this matter to trial, Mr. Kwaimani has been on bail since his arrest and I do not consider any discount on sentence to be appropriate because of it.
10	Having considered all the submissions, Lemuel Kwaimani I now sentence you to 4 years’ imprisonment, which sentence shall be deemed to have commenced on 2 April 2008.

High Court of Solomon Islands

Queen v Kwaimani [2008] SBHC 16; HCSI-CRC 355 of 2004 (2 April 2008)