Ceacea v Reginam [1977] FJSC 7; Criminal Appeal 018 & 019 of 1977 (4 March 1977)

Fiji Islands - Ceacea v Reginam - Pacific Law Materials

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FIJI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.18 AND 19 OF 1977

:

WAISAKE CEACEA

AND:

REGINAM

ENT

On the 24th January 1977 at Suva Magistrates ates Court the appellant was convicted on his own plea of assault with into commit the felony of rape contrary to section 279 of the Penal Code and of rape contrary rary to section 143 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and four strokes of corporal punishment in respect of the first offence and to five years' imprisonment and six strokes of corporal punishment in respect of the second offence; making a total sentence of eight years' imprisonment and ten strokes of corporal punishment, the later being subject to confirmation by the Supreme Court. He appeals against that sentence.

The relevant facts are that on the night of the 14th October 1976 the appellant followed a married woman who was walking to the house of her uncle. After she had knocked at the back door of the house and found nobody was at home the appellant attacked her, threw her on the ground and attempted to have forcible sexual intercourse. The complainant struggled vigorously and prevented the appellant penetrating her although he succeeded in tearing her dress and indecently assaulting her. The complainant was screaming for help and ultimately her cries were heard by three or four Fijian men who arrived at the scene. She asked them for assistance and to fetch the police, but upon being threatened by the appellant the men made no attempt to assist the complainant, made no report to the police, and simply ran away. It is a sorry state of affairs when able-bodied men witness a woman being seriously assaulted and make no effort either to assist her or to obtain assistance, and their conduct will be deplored by all right minded members of the community. Fortunately for the complainant the appellant was alarmed by this intervention and left the scene. The complainant immediately went to the road where she found a police officer on duty and made a report. On the same night a police party apprehended the appellant.

The appellant was brought before Suva Magistrates Court the following day whereupon he pleaded not guilty to the charge and the case was adjourned to the 17th December for hearing, the appellant being released on bail. On the 17th December the appellant failed to appear for trial, in breach of his bail recognisance, and a warrant for his arrest was issued.

On the 7th January 1977, before the police had been able to execute the warrant of arrest, the appellant went to a dance hall and around 11 p.m. approached two girls who were sitting at a table, one of whom was the complainant a young virgin, and asked each of them for a date which they declined. Shortly afterwards, while a dance was in progress and the lights were dim, the appellant grabbed hold of the complainant, dragged her into the men's toilet nearby, punched her in the fact and brutally raped her on the toilet floor, after which the appellant disappeared. Again nobody come to the assistance of the complainant although the incident could not have gone unnoticed.

The complainant immediately reported the matter to the police, the appellant was traced, and on the 21st January was picked out at an identification parade.

On being brought before Suva Magistrates Court on the 24th January the appellant admitted both offences.

In his grounds of appeal the appellant has graphically described the effects of alcohol on him, and no doubt on others, and I quote the following extract:

"While I am not under the influence of liquor I have the intention of honouring people and keeping the law of this Dominion to the best of my ability, but when I am under the control of liquor it seems that the source of power possesses my life and controls the whole of my spirit and understanding. I also do not feel ashamed and am not afraid of anything, and it seems to me that everything I cannot do while I am not drunk is easy for me to do. The crimes I have committed I really have no intention nor plan to do at that particular time. The reaction automatically comes to me and overcomes my will power when I am drunk. When I grabbed the hand of the girl I heard some people at my side who were drunk too, say to take her to the men's toilet. As I was drunk I felt pride and never bothered for anyone else and just wanted to fulfil what I want. I have analysed the true facts of my life and found out that my great weakness is liquor. This has happened because when I am drunk, self-contempt and pride come to me, I never fear for anything and I feel that I am the only brave one and never bother to care for a single thing. Only liquor influences me to do such serious crimes."

This description speaks for itself, and any comment of mine would be superfluous.

The appellant has thirteen previous convictions, involving shopbreaking, various offences of dishonesty, drunken and disorderly behaviour, obstructing the police in the execution of their duty, and indecent assault. He has in the past been dealt with too leniently, as after having committed an offence while already on probation he was bound over on four subsequent occasions, despite the fact that on each occasion he broke his bond by committing further offences.

As to the present offences the appellant committed rape after he had been released on bail to stand trial for a previous offence of assault with intent to commit rape. This is not the first time that a serious sexual offence has been committed in similar circumstances, and illustrates the danger of automatically granting bail on charges of this type.

The sentence in respect of which the appellant now appeals is well merited. His appeal is dismissed and the corporal punishment of ten strokes is confirmed.

Clifford H. Grant
Chief Justice

Suva,
4th March, 1977.