18-year-old Jeremy Saemala has been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in Honiara after pleading guilty to a single charge of housebreaking and committing a felony. The sentence was pronounced by the principal magistrate, Elma Veenah Rizzu Hilly, who paid particular attention to the magnitude of the offense during the hearings.
Offense Seriousness And Frequency
Housebreaking and other described forms of felony offense can attract a maximum punishment of 14 years imprisonment and therefore, Magistrate Hilly considered the nature of the offence. While explaining the court’s role during sentencing, she added, “This court ultimately has the duty to ensure that an offender who is found guilty of committing offenses must be punished for his or her wrongdoing.” She also mentioned the level of these crimes in the region. She stated there have been a large number of cases of housebreaking, mentioning the figure of 176 cases of housebreaking and committing felonies that the magistrate’s courts in Honiara have recorded since 2014. This number includes both open and closed files but does not include contested cases tried on circuits. On this, as she told the public, the magistrate Hilly said this problem is now beginning to emerge as a problem for the residents or citizens of Honiara.
Crime Details
The offense for which Saemala was sentenced took place during the early morning hours of March 9, 2025. Saemala allegedly committed a break-and-enter at the residence of a police officer. He looked through the window and noticed an Oppo and a Samsung tablet. It is alleged this window had only louvers and no mesh wire or screen, which would render it secure, thus making it breakable. A JBL speaker flip six and a Huawei power bank were also allegedly placed beside the Oppo phone and the Samsung tablet in close proximity to the window. Moreover, Saemala is reported to have unscrewed the louvers and utilized a stick shaped like a hook to retrieve the gadgets located within close proximity to the window. He left the premises without the chargers, of which he did not take any.
Arrest and Recovery
The crime was reported to the police by the victim during the police contact the same day. While the victim was still at the station, Saemala, a suspect in the case, was brought into the White River police post in the afternoon. Initially, he seemed to confess to the theft of the gadgets and later on returned to the police and took them to where they were concealed. From Saemala’s room, the Oppo phone and JBL Flip 6 speaker were recovered. The Samsung tablet and Huawei power bank were obtained with the aid of two of his friends, David and Jerry. He purportedly bestowed those two gadgets for them to dispose of. After this arrest, he was lodged at the central watch house. The offender’s items were reclaimed by the victim soon after the police were done with the victim’s items. dispatch.
Saemala was placed under arrest after his purported confession and refusal to bargain with the police. His recovery process occurred whilst he was restrained in handcuffs and detained at the central watch house.
Factors that Aggravate and Mitigate
While sentencing, Magistrate Hilly brought out particular aggravating elements concerning the crime. These were the time of the offense, which is at night; a weapon used in the commission of the crime, which is a stick with a hook curve; and an element of pre-planning in the execution of the break-in and theft. As she put the sentence on the record described as dangerous, she said, “You have brought danger into the lives of innocent residents when you decided to commit this offens”e. Further, she elaborated on the home’s sanctuary status and added, “Home is supposed to be the safest and most secure place that a person can have for his protection against danger.”
Saemala’s attorney advocates for some mitigating factors and so submits them. Jennifer Happylyn, who works in the Public Solicitor’s Office, put forward that the court should take into account such things as Saemala’s age, which is 18 years; the educational level, which is not complete; and the household background troubles coming from separated parents. While this was her case, she also pointed out some others to sustain her argument, such as his voluntary cooperation with the judicial process through the early answer to the indictment, comprising confession, alongside the remorse he expressed thereafter, and a decent profile devoid of offenses before this offending incident.
Sentencing and Outlook
Taking into account the various factors, Magistrate Hilly set a starting point of two years’ imprisonment for the offense. After taking into account all the aggravating and mitigating features coupled with Saemala’s personal circumstances, she arrived at a final sentence of 12 months imprisonment. The sentence was set to commence on 11th March 2025, being the date when Saemala was first remanded in custody. Magistrate Hilly stated her expectations regarding Saemala’s period of custody. She said, “It is my hope that you will make use of your time in custody to reflect upon your own life, make amends, and mentally prepare for when you are reintegrated back into your community.” The court informed Saemala of his rights to appeal the sentence.
