State v Ereinadi - Sentence [2022] FJHC 612; HAC185.2019 (30 September 2022)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 185 of 2019

STATE

V

VILIAME EREINADI

Counsel : Mr. Joeli Nasa for the State
Ms. Esiteri Radrole with Ms. Vinaina Diroiroi for the Accused

Dates of Trial : 2-4 May 2022

Closing Submissions : 6 May 2022

Judgment : 27 July 2022

Sentence Hearing : 29 August 2022

Sentence : 30 September 2022

The name of the complainant is suppressed. Accordingly, the complainant will be referred to as “KN”.

SENTENCE

[1] Viliame Ereinadi, you were charged with the following offence:

COUNT 1

Statement of Offence

RAPE: Contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (a) of the Crimes Act.

Particulars of Offence

VILIAME EREINADI, between the 1^st day of October 2017 and the 31^st day of October 2017, at Sigatoka, in the Western Division, penetrated the vagina of KN, with his penis, without her consent.

[2] You pleaded not guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to trial. The ensuing trial was held over 3 days. The complainant (KN) testified on behalf of the prosecution and was the sole prosecution witness. You testified on your own behalf.

[3] At the conclusion of the evidence and having reviewed the said evidence, this Court found you guilty and convicted you of the count of Rape as charged.

[4] It was proved during the trial that, between the 1 October 2017 and the 31 October 2017, at Sigatoka, you penetrated the vagina of the complainant, with your penis, without her consent.

[5] It is an agreed fact that the complainant is your cousin sister and that you and the complainant reside with your respective families at Vavinaqiri Settlement, Emuri Village, Sigatoka.

[6] The complainant testified that her date of birth is 3 October 2002. Therefore, at the time you committed this offence on her she was 15 years of age, and as such a juvenile. At the time she testified in Court she had turned 19.

[7] The complainant clearly testified to the manner in which you had perpetrated this offence on her. I have referred to the complainant’s evidence at length in my judgment.

[8] In terms of the Victim Impact Statement filed in Court, it is recorded that the complainant has been emotionally and psychologically traumatized by your actions. It is clear that the impact of your actions are continuing, as the complainant remains emotionally and psychologically traumatized by the incidents.

[9] Section 4(1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act No. 42 of 2009 (“Sentencing and Penalties Act”) stipulates the relevant factors that a Court should take into account during the sentencing process. The factors are as follows:

4. — (1) The only purposes for which sentencing may be imposed by a court are —

(a) to punish offenders to an extent and in a manner which is just in all the circumstances;

(b) to protect the community from offenders;

(c) to deter offenders or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar nature;

(d) to establish conditions so that rehabilitation of offenders may be promoted or facilitated;

(e) to signify that the court and the community denounce the commission of such offences; or

(f) any combination of these purposes.

[10] I have duly considered the above factors in determining the sentence to be imposed on you, which is primarily to punish offenders, to deter offenders or other persons from committing such offences and also to signify that the Court and the community denounce the commission of such offences.

[11] Section 4 (3) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act stipulates the factors that a Court must have regard to in sentencing offenders for a domestic violence offence.

“(3) In sentencing offenders for an offence involving domestic violence, a court must also have regard to —

(a) any special considerations relating to the physical, psychological or other characteristics of a victim of the offence, including —

(i) the age of the victim;

(ii) whether the victim was pregnant; and

(iii) whether the victim suffered any disability;

(b) whether a child or children were present when the offence was committed, or were otherwise affected by it;

(c) the effect of the violence on the emotional, psychological and physical well-being of a victim;

(d) the effect of the offence in terms of hardship, dislocation or other difficulties experienced by a victim;

(e) the conduct of the offender towards the victim since the offence, and any matter which indicates whether the offender —

(i) accepts responsibility for the offence and its consequences;

(ii) has taken steps to make amends to a victim, including action to minimise or address the negative impacts of the offence on a victim;

(iii) may pose any further threat to a victim;

(f) evidence revealing the offender’s —

(i) attitude to the offence;

(ii) intention to address the offending behaviour; and

(iii) likelihood of continuing to pose a threat to a victim; and

(g) whether the offender has sought and received counselling or other assistance to address the offending behaviour, or is willing to undertake such counselling or seek such assistance.”

[12] The offence of Rape in terms of Section 207(1) of the Crimes Act carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.

[13] The severity of the offence of Rape was highlighted by the Fiji Court of Appeal in the case of Mohammed Kasim v. The State [1994] FJCA 25; AAU 21 of 93 (27 May 1994); where it was stated:

“....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.”

[14] In the case of State v. Marawa [2004] FJHC 338; HAC 16T of 2003S (23 April 2004); His Lordship Justice Anthony Gates stated:

“Parliament has prescribed the sentence of life imprisonment for rape. Rape is the most serious sexual offence. The Courts have reflected increasing public intolerance for this crime by hardening their hearts to offenders and meting out harsher sentences”.

“A long custodial sentence is inevitable. This is to mark the gravity of the offence as felt, and correctly so, by the community. Imprisonment emphasizes the public’s disapproval and serves as a warning to others who may hitherto regard such acts lightly. One must not ignore the validity of the imposition of condign punishment for serious crime. Lastly the sentence is set in order to protect women from such crimes: Roberts and Roberts (1982) 4 Cr. App R(S) 8; The State v Lasaro Turagabeci and Others (unreported) Suva High Court Crim. Case No. HAC0008.1996S.”

[15] In The State v Lasaro Turagabeci and Others (supra) Pain J had said:

“The Courts have made it clear that rapists will be dealt with severely. Rape is generally regarded as one of the gravest sexual offences. It violates and degrades a fellow human being. The physical and emotional consequences to the victim are likely to be severe. The Courts must protect women from such degradation and trauma. The increasing prevalence of such offending in the community calls for deterrent sentences.”

[16] His Lordship Justice Daniel Goundar, in the case of State v. AV [2009] FJHC 24; HAC 192 of 2008 (2 February 2009); observed:

“....Rape is the most serious form of sexual assault. In this case a child was raped. Society cannot condone any form of sexual assaults on children. Children are our future. The Courts have a positive obligation under the Constitution to protect the vulnerable from any form of violence or sexual abuse. Sexual offenders must be deterred from committing this kind of offences”.

[17] In the case of State v. Tauvoli [2011] FJHC 216; HAC 27 of 2011 (18 April 2011); His Lordship Justice Paul Madigan stated:

“Rape of children is a very serious offence indeed and it seems to be very prevalent in Fiji at the time. The legislation has 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.”

[18] In the case of Felix Ram v. The State [2015] FJSC 26; CAV 12 of 2015 (23 October 2015); His Lordship Chief Justice Anthony Gates laid down the following factors that a Court should take into account when sentencing an offender who has been convicted of Rape:

“(a) whether the crime had been planned, or whether it was incidental or opportunistic;

(b) whether there had been a breach of trust;

(c) whether committed alone;

(d) whether alcohol or drugs had been used to condition the victim;

(e) whether the victim was disabled, mentally or physically, or was specially vulnerable as a child;

(f) whether the impact on the victim had been severe, traumatic, or continuing;

(g) whether actual violence had been inflicted;

(h) whether injuries or pain had been caused and if so how serious, and were they potentially capable of giving rise to STD infections;

(i) whether the method of penetration was dangerous or especially abhorrent;

(j) whether there had been a forced entry to a residence where the victim was present;

(k) whether the incident was sustained over a long period such as several hours;

(l) whether the incident had been especially degrading or humiliating;

(m) If a plea of guilty was tendered, how early had it been given. No discount for plea after victim had to go into the witness box and be cross-examined. Little discount, if at start of trial;

(n) Time spent in custody on remand;

(o) Extent of remorse and an evaluation of its genuineness;

(p) If other counts or if serving another sentence, totality of appropriate sentence.”

[19] His Lordship Justice Goundar in State v Apisai Takalaibau – Sentence [2018] FJHC 505; HAC 154 of 2018 (15 June 2018); making reference to statistics of Aggravated Burglary cases filed in the High Court in 2017 and 2018, stated that “A factor that influences sentencing is the prevalence of the offence in the community........The more prevalent is an offence, the greater the need is for deterrence and protection of the community.”

[20] This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Alfaaz v. State [2018] FJSC 17; CAV0009.2018 (30 August 2018); where it was recognized that the prevalence of cases of child rape calls for harsher punishments to be imposed by Courts. Their Lordships held:
“According to the statistics released by the Director of Public Prosecutions Office it appears that a number of rape victims as well as victims under the age of 18 years and victims in domestic relationships or relatives were also victims of other serious sexual offences. The rape of children is a very serious offence and it is very frequent and prevalent in Fiji. The courts must impose harsh penalties dictated by the legislation. The courts should not leniently look at this kind of serious cases of rape of children of tender years when punishing the offenders.”

[21] In the case of Anand Abhay Raj v. The State [2014] FJSC 12; CAV 0003 of 2014 (20 August 2014); Chief Justice Anthony Gates (with Justice Sathyaa Hettige and Madam Justice Chandra Ekanayake agreeing) endorsed the view that Rapes of juveniles (under the age of 18 years) must attract a sentence of at least 10 years and the acceptable range of sentences or sentencing tariff is between 10 and 16 years imprisonment.

[22] However, in the case of Aitcheson v State [2018] FJSC 29; CAV0012 of 2018 (2 November 2018); His Lordship Chief Justice Gates stated that the sentencing tariff for the Rape of a juvenile should now be increased to between 11 and 20 years imprisonment. His Lordship held:

“The tariff previously set in Raj v The State [2014] FJSC 12 CAV0003.2014 (20^th August 2014) should now be between 11-20 years imprisonment. Much will depend upon the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, considerations of remorse, early pleas, and finally time spent on remand awaiting trial for the final sentence outcome. The increased tariff represents the denunciation of the courts in the strongest terms.”

[23] In Aitcheson v State (Supra), it was said:

[72] Undoubtedly it has been accepted by the society that rape is the most serious sexual offence that could be committed on a woman. Further it is said that; “A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim; a rapist degrades the very soul of a helpless female.”

[24] In determining the starting point within the said tariff, the Court of Appeal, in Laisiasa Koroivuki v. State [2013] FJCA 15; AAU 0018 of 2010 (5 March 2013); has formulated the following guiding principles:

“In selecting a starting point, the court must have regard to an objective seriousness of the offence. No reference should be made to the mitigating and aggravating factors at this time. As a matter of good practice, the starting point should be picked from the lower or middle range of the tariff. After adjusting for the mitigating and aggravating factors, the final term should fall within the tariff. If the final term falls either below or higher than the tariff, then the sentencing court should provide reasons why the sentence is outside the range.”

[25] In the light of the above guiding principles, and taking into consideration the objective seriousness of the offence, I commence your sentence at 11 years imprisonment for the count of Rape.

[26] The aggravating factors are as follows:

(i) You are the older cousin of the complainant. Being so, you should have protected and safeguarded the complainant. Instead you have breached the trust expected from you and the breach was gross.

(ii) There was a minor disparity in age between you and the complainant. The complainant was 15 years of age at the time you committed this offence on her. At the time of the offending you were 23 years of age. Therefore, you were 8 years older than the complainant.

(iii) You took advantage of the complainant’s vulnerability, helplessness and naivety.

(iv) You have exposed the innocent mind of a child to sexual activity at such a tender age, and thereby robbed the complainant of her innocence.

(v) I find that there was some degree of planning and premeditation on your part in committing this offence. You had committed this offence on the complainant at a time you found her walking alone on the road and then taken her to a secluded place nearby.

(vi) The complainant has been emotionally and psychologically traumatized by your actions and the harm is said to be continuing.

(vii) Due to your actions the complainant was impregnated and had given birth to twin daughters, who were born on 9 June 2018. Thus at the age of 15 the complainant became a mother of twins and a single parent.

[27] Considering the aforementioned aggravating factors, I increase your sentence by a further 4 years. Now your sentence is 15 years imprisonment for the count of Rape.

[28] Viliame Ereinadi, you are now 28 years of age (Your date of birth being 11 June 1994). At the time of offending you were 5 years younger. You are married with 3 children, who are 4 years, 2 years and 6 months old respectively. You were said to be working as a Pump Man at the Vatukoula Gold Mine prior to being convicted for this matter. You are the sole bread winner of your family.

[29] However, the above are all personal circumstances and cannot be considered as mitigating circumstances.

[30] Viliame Ereinadi, you are a first offender. The State Counsel too has confirmed this position. Therefore, Court considers you as a person of previous good character.

[31] I accept that you are a person of previous good character. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid mitigating factor I reduce 2 years from your sentence. Now your sentence will be 13 years imprisonment for the count of Rape.

[32] Accordingly, I sentence you to a term of 13 years’ imprisonment.

[33] The discretion originally granted to a Court in determining whether to fix a non-parole period or not has now been taken away by virtue of the Corrections Service (Amendment) Act No. 29 of 2019 (which was passed into Law on 22 November 2019). Therefore, it is now mandatory when a Court sentences an offender to be imprisoned for life or for a term of 2 years or more, to impose a non-parole period to be served in terms of Section 18 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act.

[34] The Corrections Service (Amendment) Act No. 29 of 2019 has introduced an additional sub Section 27(3) to the Corrections Services Act 2006. The said sub-section reads as follows:

“Notwithstanding subsection (2), where the sentence of a prisoner includes a non-parole period fixed by a court in accordance with section 18 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act 2009, for the purposes of the initial classification, the date of release for the prisoner shall be determined on the basis of a remission of one-third of the sentence not taking into account the non-parole period”.

[35] Viliame Ereinadi, considering the fact that you are a relatively young first offender (at the time of offending you were 23) and also considering the personal circumstances you have submitted to Court, I deem it appropriate to fix the non-parole period to be served by you, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act, in a manner that would coincide closely with the period of remission that you would be entitled to in terms of the Corrections Services Act 2006.

[36] Accordingly, I fix your non-parole period or the period that you are not eligible to be released on parole as 9 years’ imprisonment.

[37] Section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act reads thus:

“If an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, any period of time during which the offender was held in custody prior to the trial of the matter or matters shall, unless a court otherwise orders, be regarded by the court as a period of imprisonment already served by the offender.”

[38] You were in arrested for this case and produced in the Magistrate’s Court of Sigatoka on 30 September 2019. You were granted bail by the Learned Magistrate on the same day. Thereafter, you were remanded into custody on 27 July 2022, the day on which you were found guilty and convicted for this case. That is a period of about 2 months. The period you were in custody shall be regarded as period of imprisonment already served by you. I hold that a period of 2 months should be considered as served in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act.

[39] In the result, your final sentence is as follows:

Head Sentence - 13 years’ imprisonment.

Non-parole period - 9 years’ imprisonment.

Considering the time you have spent in remand, the time remaining to be served is as follows:

Head Sentence - 12 years’ and 10 months’ imprisonment.

Non-parole period - 8 years’ and 10 months’ imprisonment.

[40] You have 30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal if you so wish.

Riyaz Hamza
JUDGE

HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LAUTOKA
Dated this 30^th Day of September 2022

Solicitors for the State : Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Lautoka.

Solicitors for the Accused : Office of the Legal Aid Commission, Lautoka.