State v Kaudik [1987] PGLawRp 511; [1987] PNGLR 201 (11 June 1987)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Papua New Guinea Law Reports

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentences - Rape - Guidelines - Pack rape - Starting point eight years - Aggravating factors - Mitigating circumstances - Planned pack rape using bush knives as threat on 17-year-old student - Sentence of 12 years.

On a plea of guilty to a charge of rape the facts revealed that the accused was one of eight men who having abducted a 17-year-old student from the campus of the University of Technology carried and dragged her whilst threatening her with a bush knife to a river bed where they then set about systematically having intercourse with the victim and subjecting her to indecent acts over a period of time. The accused was a 19-year-old with a previous prior conviction for break enter and stealing for which he was serving a sentence of five years but had escaped from custody. Despite the number of incidents of intercourse the victim was not seriously physically injured but suffered some mental stress.

N1>(1) The offence of rape is a serious crime which calls for immediate punitive custodial sentence other than in wholly exceptional circumstances.

N2>(b) where any one or more of the following aggravating factors are present the sentence should be substantially higher than the suggested starting point:

(v) the accused has previous convictions for rape or other serious offences of a sexual or violent kind;

(iii) the degree of involvement of the defendant in the planning and carrying into effect of the crime.

N1>(3) In the circumstances the accused should be sentenced to 12 years in hard labour.

An accused pleaded guilty to a charge of rape and the following reasons for sentence were delivered.

AMET J.: The prisoner Peter Kaudik of Bafor village on KarKar Island in the Madang Province had pleaded guilty that he on or about 29 October 1986, at Lae, committed rape upon one FL.

The facts in the case, as pleaded to and which I accepted were these. The victim, a 17-year-old student, lived on the University of Technology campus in Lae, with her parents. They were from Ireland. On the evening of Wednesday, 29 October 1986, the victim went to the home of a Mr and Mrs Hennessy, also at the University of Technology campus, at about 7.15 pm to babysit for them while they went out. The Hennessys returned home just after 11.00 pm. Mr Hennessy remained in the motor vehicle to take the victim to her home. As the victim was about to get into the motor vehicle, she and Mr Hennessy were held up. Mr Hennessy who was still in his motor vehicle was held up by a man pointing a shot gun at him, whilst the victim was grabbed from behind by someone holding a bushknife. As Mr Hennessy was told to get out of the motor vehicle two or three men surrounded him. Two others grabbed the victim and took her to a clump of bushes in the Hennessy’s garden where they forced her to lie down, forcibly took off her trousers, shoes and panties and tried to have sexual intercourse with her against her will. They were stopped by one of the others. The group then took her to the boundary fence where others were waiting. They pushed her through a hole in the fence. I quote excerpts from the victim’s affidavit on parts of the subsequent events.

“At this time, I was naked from the waist down and barefooted. They ran with me across the road and into the long grass and while we were running, I tried to call out but they quickly covered my mouth and stuck a knife to my throat to make me shut up. Because it made them so agitated I decided it was better for me to keep quiet, if I coughed or started to even speak to them they’d point a knife at me and threaten to kill me.... Then we started running into the bush away from the University and the road. We ran fast, somebody always holding onto my arm. I tried to stumble to slow them down because the thing I wanted was not to be taken further away from the University. Then they decided to carry me. Some of the time, I was just carried on somebody’s back (like being given a piggy back) other times one of them put me [sic] legs on their shoulders, one on either side of his head and another carried my head and shoulders so that I was carried between the two of them. As I was being carried and when I was walking, one or other of them would come up behind me and finger my buttocks and genital area. I stopped this by clamping my legs together and stopped them from kissing me on the mouth by moving my head away.... They carried me through vines and over fallen tree trunks.... Then we stopped beside the fence and one of them said to me: ‘You know what we’re going to do to you?’ and I answered ‘Yes’. Then he said we’ll just do it to you and let you go.... They told me if I told the Police anything about them, they would come and kill me and my mother and father.... While we were walking along the fence I was not carried but allowed to walk on my own with a few in front of me and a few behind.... At this time I estimated six or seven.

Once when we were walking through the bush, me and two of them got left behind and they made me lie down on some twigs and tried to rape me.

When we reached the river I was made to stand to one side while the men had a conference. It was then that I counted them and discovered there were eight of them.... We walked down the river in it in the direction it was flowing. Then we came to another sandy bank. Then I was asked how old I was and I said 13. The guy said let me check and felt my bust and I think he believed me.

On the sandy bank the guy who had been asking how old I was told me to ‘sleep’. I sat down on the sand not understanding what he meant. He repeated the word ‘sleep’ and I lay down. He undid his trousers, and lay down on top of me. He took my legs and put them over his shoulders and proceeded to rape me. I just lay there and pretended it was not happening, I did not participate in any way. When he had finished, he got up and said,’thank you’ and then another came. After that they took it in turns, one after the other. They would ask me to wipe my genital area with my shirt after the other one before they would start raping me. Then one came over and put his penis in my mouth and forced me to keep it there while one of his companions was simultaneously raping me. He wanted me to ‘kaikai’ his ‘cok’ (those were his words). This happened a few times with different members of the gang, they all took turns. I bit one of them and he said he felt pain. Other than being raped, I was not physically beaten or harmed in any way. Scratches and etc that I received were from walking through the bushes with bare feet and legs. Some of the guys were gentlier [sic] and more considerate than others one or two were rough and thrust deeply into me hurting me because my legs were over their shoulders. Some of them asked me to put their testicles into me, meaning their penis. Others asked me to hold onto their genitals and if I refused they got agitated and annoyed.

I lost count of how many actually raped me when they started pushing their penises into my mouth. I’m sure though each one did it once at least.

We walked along the track for a short while and then down a steep bank.... Again I was taken aside by one of them while the others had a conference. The guy with me told me to hold onto his penis and I refused and he forced me and got me to move my hand up and down on it.... At this time a couple of them were naked. Then two of the gang walked over and we started walking away.... We walked a short way down the road and then one of them forced me to lie down again and I protested and was pushed down. He raped me and I hurt my back and head because I was forced to lie down where it was rocky and they dug into my back. His companion also raped me. Then we got up and started walking again.”

They then brought her back onto the main road and told her if she kept walking in a certain direction she would come to the University of Technology. She walked along the road for about 25 minutes before a University security vehicle which had been out in search for her picked her up. The victim was still naked from the waist down.

The University Medical Officer examined the victim at 3.00 am on 30 October 1986 and found her

“not in any apparent distress, was mentally alert and conscious. She had bruises all over her body especially on her lower limbs and abdomen. Pelvic examination revealed bruises around the groins. In the vaginal orifice, the labias were bruised red and raw suggestive of numerous penetration, hymen absent, no bleeding, no broken tissues.... She was not physically harmed or injured except she acquired minor injuries or bruises as a result of sexual activity around the genital area and on the lower limbs as a result of being walked through bushes in the night”.

I accept from the prisoner’s confessional statement that at about 9.00 pm he was at his home at East Taraka when one John Geno from Simbu went with five others and called him to go with them to the University of Technology. When they arrived at the University, the prisoner and three others remained on the side of the road near the fence keeping a lookout. John Geno and three others cut the security fence and went into the University campus and brought out the “white lady”, the victim. The group then took her to the headwaters of the Bumbu river, where they raped her. The prisoner was the sixth person to rape her. When they took her from the University, they took off all her clothes and they carried her naked with only a yellow shirt.

I have set out these facts in some detail as they become relevant in the discussion of some guidelines on appropriate sentences for rape taking into account the aggravating as well as the mitigating features.

The National Courts have on numerous occasions in the past dealt with rape cases of varying circumstances and have endeavoured to classify or categorise them in one degree of seriousness or another. It is, however, useful to restate some of these as guidelines. As I deliver this judgment I know that the Supreme Court is considering in a reserved judgment these very issues of sentencing guidelines and the general range of sentences in rapecases.[vii]² I do not pre-empt that judgment.

The English Court of Appeal in R v Billam [1986] 1 WLR 349 laid down some guidelines which I find quite useful. The court cited with approval (at 350) a passage from the Criminal Law Revision Committee’s 15th Report on Sexual Offences (1984 Cmnd 9213) par 2.2. It is as follows:

“Rape is generally regarded as the most grave of all the sexual offences. In a paper put before us for our consideration by the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences the reasons for this are set out as follows —

‘Rape involves a severe degree of emotional and psychological trauma; it may be described as a violation which in effect obliterates the personality of the victim. Its physical consequences equally are severe: the actual physical harm occasioned by the act of intercourse, associated violence or force and in some cases degradation; after the event, quite apart from the woman’s continuing insecurity, the fear of venereal disease or pregnancy. We do not believe this latter fear should be under-estimated because abortion would usually be available. This is not a choice open to all women and it is not a welcome consequence for any. Rape is also particularly unpleasant because it involves such intimate proximity between the offender and victim. We also attach importance to the point that the crime of rape involves abuse of an act which can be a fundamental means of expressing love for another; and to which as a society we attach considerable value.’ ”

The court also said it had emphasised in R v Roberts [1982] 1 WLR 133, that rape is always a serious crime which calls for an immediate custodial sentence other than in wholly exceptional circumstances. I would adopt that statement as being applicable to the circumstances of this offence in Papua New Guinea today, which in my view calls for stern punitive custodial sentence in the first instance.

“The variable factors in cases of rape are so numerous that it is difficult to lay down guidelines as to the proper length of sentence in terms of years.... There are, however, many reported decisions of the court which give an indication of what current practice ought to be and it may be useful to summarise their general effect.

For rape committed by an adult without any aggravating or mitigating features, a figure of five years should be taken as the starting point in a contested case. Where a rape is committed by two or more men acting together, or by a man who has broken into or otherwise gained access to a place where the victim is living, or by a person who is in a position of responsibility towards the victim, or by a person who abducts the victim and holds her captive, the starting point should be eight years.

At the top of the scale comes the defendant who has carried out what might be described as a campaign of rape, committing the crime upon a number of different women or girls. He represents a more than ordinary danger and a sentence of 15 years or more may be appropriate.

Where the defendant’s behaviour has manifested perverted or psychopathic tendencies or gross personality disorder, and where he is likely, if at large, to remain a danger to women for an indefinite time, a life sentence will not be inappropriate.

The crime should in any event be treated as aggravated by any of the following factors: (1) violence is used over and above the force necessary to commit the rape; (2) a weapon is used to frighten or wound the victim; (3) the rape is repeated; (4) the rape has been carefully planned; (5) the defendant has previous convictions for rape or other serious offences of a violent or sexual kind; (6) the victim is subjected to further sexual indignities or perversions; (7) the victim is either very old or very young; (8) the effect upon the victim, whether physical or mental, is of special seriousness. Where any one or more of these aggravating features are present, the sentence should be substantially higher than the figure suggested as the starting point.

The extra distress which giving evidence can cause to a victim means that a plea of guilty, perhaps more so than in other cases, should normally result in some reduction from what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence. The amount of such reduction will of course depend on all the circumstances, including the likelihood of a finding of not guilty had the matter been contested.”

I have cited a good deal of the judgment because I consider all of what I have quoted to be quite applicable to our consideration of rape cases and the range of sentences we should have to determine. The only qualification of course is the starting point in the sentences for the various categories. We have to determine that for ourselves in the circumstances of each case.

The offence in this case was committed by eight men acting together, who abducted the victim and held her captive. In the circumstances of the offences in this case earlier set out, I would not consider the starting point of eight years to be inappropriate.

N2>6. The prisoner has a prior conviction for a serious offence of break, enter and stealing for which he was and still is serving a sentence of five years in hard labour. The rape was committed in the period after his escape from lawful custody. Though not a sexual offence, it is an offence which had the potential of becoming a violent one.

I adopt as applicable also the Court of Appeal’s view that “where any one or more of these aggravating features are present, the sentence should be substantially higher than the figure suggested as the starting point”.

N2>1. The prisoner pleaded guilty — this has saved the victim extra distress which giving evidence would have caused her.

N2>4. He and three others kept watch on road when others effected the hold up and abduction of the victim.

Several other factors which are often submitted and relied upon as mitigating factors, really ought not to be treated as mitigating factors, and I agree with the Court of Appeal’s view on this.

“The fact that the victim may be considered to have exposed herself to danger by acting imprudently (as for instance by accepting a lift in a car from a stranger) is not a mitigating factor; and the victim’s previous sexual experience is equally irrelevant. But if the victim has behaved in a manner which was calculated to lead the defendant to believe that she would consent to sexual intercourse, then there should be some mitigation of the sentence. Previous good character is of only minor relevance.”

I consider that in all these circumstances, this case is in the most serious category of rape offences. There were a large number of you, eight in all, and you all behaved in an utterly animalistic way treating this young woman like an animal, causing sexual perversions and indignity upon her.

The sentence of this Court I believe should reflect the society’s utter revulsion at this kind of violation of females, however old and of whatever race or nationality. They have the same right to be respected as do men, in their private persons.

I sentence you to 12 years in hard labour, to be served concurrently with the sentence of five for break, enter and stealing.

[vi] [Editor's Note: See also Aubuku v The State [1987] PNGLR 267 where principles herein were approved by the Supreme Court.]

[vii] See Aubuku v The State [1987] PNGLR 267.

Papua New Guinea Law Reports

State v Kaudik [1987] PGLawRp 511; [1987] PNGLR 201 (11 June 1987)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1987