Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO.: HAC 207 OF 2013
STATE
v
NAVITALAI NAIVALULEVU
Counsels: Ms. L. Latu for the State
Ms. L. Raisua for the accused
Date of Trial: 7 August 2014-12 August 2014
Date of Summing Up: 13 August 2014
Date of Judgment: 13 August 2014
Date of Sentence: 20 August 2014
(Name of the victim is suppressed. She is referred to as AN)
SENTENCE
FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence
RAPE: Contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (b) and (3) of the Crimes Decree 44 of 2009.
Particulars of Offence
NAVITALAI NAIVALULEVU between the 18th of August 2012 and 2nd day of September 2012 at Vatukoula in the Western Division, inserted his finger into the vagina of AN, a 10 year old girl.
SECOND COUNT
Statement of Offence
RAPE: Contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (a) and (3) of the Crimes Decree 44 of 2009.
Particulars of Offence
NAVITALAI NAIVALULEVU between the 18th of August 2012 and 2nd day of September 2012 at Vatukoula in the Western Division, inserted his finger into the vagina of AN, a 10 year old girl.
THIRD COUNT
Statement of Offence
SEXUAL ASSAULT: Contrary to Section 210 (1) and (2) of the Crimes Decree 44 of 2009.
Particulars of Offence
NAVITALAI NAIVALULEVU between the 03rd of September 2012 and 30th day of September 2012 at Vatukoula in the Western Division, indecently assaulted AN by licking and sucking the vagina of the said AN.
FOURTH COUNT
Statement of Offence
RAPE: Contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (a) and (3) of the Crimes Decree 44 of 2009.
Particulars of Offence
NAVITALAI NAIVALULEVU between the 03rd of September 2012 and 30th day of September 2012 at Vatukoula in the Western Division, inserted his penis into the vagina of AN, a 10 year old girl.
"We consider that at any rape case without aggravating or mitigating features the starting point for sentencing an adult should be a term of imprisonment of seven years. It must be recognized by the Courts that the crime of rape has become altogether too frequent and that the sentences imposed by the Courts for that crime must more nearly reflect the understandable public outrage. We must stress, however, that the particular circumstances of a case will mean that there are cases where the proper sentence may be substantially higher or substantially lower than that starting point."
"Rape of children is a very serious offence in deed and it seems to be very prevalent in Fiji at the time. The legislation had dictated harsh penalties and the Courts are imposing those penalties in order to reflect society's abhorrence for such crimes. Our nation's children must be protected and they must be allowed to develop to sexual maturity unmolested. Psychologists tell us that the effect of sexual abuse on children in their later development is profound."
In this case 42 year step father was sentenced for 13 years with non parole period of 10 years for digital rape of 14 year old step daughter.
"The accused's engagement in his unilateral sexual activity with a little girl who was insensitive to such activity is most abhorrent. This kind of immoral act on a little girl of MB's standing is bound to yield adverse results and psychological trauma, the effect of which is indeed difficult to foresee and asses even by psychologists and sociologists. The depravity of the accused in committing the offence should be denounced to save little children for their own future; and, the men of the accused's caliber should not be allowed to deny the children of their legitimate place in the community. In passing down the sentence in case of this nature, deterrence is therefore, of paramount importance."
"The accused had not shown any remorse or repentance. On the contrary, he relentlessly castigated the witnesses saying that they were making up a false allegation at the expense of the little girl to avenge an unsubstantiated previous incident of refusing a loan to MB's mother. This added, in my view, insult to the injury. While court recognizes that the accused was entitled to advance any proposition in support of his case, court equally recognizes that it should show its displeasure by showing no mercy in the matter of sentence when such allegations are found to be totally ill-founded as in this case."
Considering all, I increase your sentence by 4 years now the sentence is 16 years imprisonment.
Considering all, I reduce 1year from your sentence now your sentence is 15 years imprisonment.
Category 1 (the most serious)
Contact between the naked genitalia of the offender and naked genitalia face or mouth of the victim
Category 2
(a) Contact between the naked genitalia of the offender and another part of the victim's body;
(b) Contact with the genitalia of the victim by the offender using part of his or her body other than genitalia, or an object;
(c) Contact between either the clothed genitalia of the offender and naked genitalia of the victim; or the naked genitalia of the offender with and the clothed genitalia of the victim;
Category 3
Contact between part of the offender's body (other than the genitalia) with part of the victim's body (other than genitalia).
"The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentence who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate is 'just and appropriate'. The principle has been stated many times in various forms: 'when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong'; "when... cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behavior and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences."
Summary
Sudharshana De Silva
JUDGE
At Lautoka
20th August 2014
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for the State
Office of the Legal Aid commission for the Accused
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2014/599.html