State v Gideon [2002] PGNC 17; N2335 (5 March 2002)

N2335
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 697 OF 2001

THE STATE

v.

DII GIDEON

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Rape – plea – Pack-rape – Expatriate 3 month old pregnant woman – Raped in front of family and foreign visitor – Prisoner had prior conviction for rape – Strong and punitive sentence appropriate - Twenty – Five (25) years imprisonment in hard labour.

Cases cited:
John Aubuku v. The State [1987] PNGLR 267;
Meaoa v. The State [1996] PNGLR 280
The State v. Kaudik [1987] PNGLR 201;

Counsel:
Ms Nidue for the State
Mrs Raymond for the accused

5 March 2002

INJIA J.: The prisoner comes from the Ambum Valley in the Enga Province. At the time of the offence he was residing at Peter’s Block, Kamkumung, Lae. He pleaded guilty to one count of rape contrary to s.347 of the Criminal Code.

The facts are that on the night of 22/2/99 at about 4.00a.m. the prisoner and four others armed with two guns, a screw driver and kitchen knife went to the home of an expatriate couple namely "Mr. RW & Mrs. TW (named)" which is situated at Cassowary road, Lae. They climbed over the wire fence, broke open the door and held up Mr. RW who came to open the door. They threatened to blow off his head, tied his hands and feet, put a gag in his mouth and forced him to lie face down on the floor. They then ransacked the home of personal belongings, to the total value of K19,000. Whilst this was going on, this accused and another accomplice went to the bedroom where Mrs. TW. was. This prisoner, described by Mrs. TW as the shorter person of the two men that entered the bedroom, had a kitchen knife. He repeatedly asked her if she was pregnant. She was trying to tell him that she was 3 months pregnant but she could not because he threatened to "put the knife in my head". Then the other man took a flare gun situated in the room and pointed it at her. This prisoner then told her to open her legs which she did and he had sexual intercourse with her, without her consent. Then two of his other accomplices took their turn to have sex with her, again without her consent. After they had finished, they rushed out "brandishing" their weapons. Also held up in the room was a visitor from Australia Mr. PH (named). The couple’s daughter, one Miss Z (named), was asleep in the other bedroom but she was not harmed. The accomplice who held the long-barrel shotgun said that "this was the fault of the establishment and that we the expatriates had to pay for what was happening to the youth today."

The prisoner is said to be 19 years old but he appears to me a bit older. This is not his first offence. On 16/12/98, the National Court sentenced him to 5 years IHL for rape. On 18/01/99, he escaped and was recaptured on 11/01/00. He committed this present offence, on 22/2/99, just one month after escaping from prison. His escape case is yet to be dealt with. On 7/12/01, Justice Kirriwom sentenced him to 14 years, IHL for the robbery component of this same incident. This sentence was ordered to be served cumulatively with the sentence for rape. He is now serving a total of 19 years.

Apart from this prisoner’s guilty plea and co-operation with the police in freely admitting the offence, there is no other mitigating factor to be considered in his favour. Despite his youth, he is a seasoned criminal with a bad criminal record. With two convictions for rape behind him now, he is well and truly on his way to becoming a "serial rapist". Only a strong punitive sentence can halt this kind of criminal behaviour.

He requests that any sentence imposed by this Court to be made concurrent with the robbery sentence of 14 years. I accept his request because both crimes were committed in the same series of events.

The offence of rape is a heinous crime, which is totally abhorred by the community. It is more serious than robbery, with or without circumstances of aggravation. It is prevalent in our community. In that regard, any sentence I impose for rape must certainly be higher than the robbery sentence imposed by Kirriwom J. The facts clearly show that this was a serious pre-mediated gang-rape, in terrifying conditions, of an innocent, unsuspecting 3-month pregnant expatriate woman, who had nothing to do with the woes of the Education system which behoves the nation and its youth.

The maximum punishment for rape is life imprisonment. Courts in the past have passed sentences between 12 years – 14 years in pack-rape cases and in some cases, even life imprisonment: see John Aubuku v. The State [1987] PNGLR 267; The State v. Kaudik [1987] PNGLR 201 and Meaoa v. The State [1996] PNGLR 280. Even then there has been public outcry in the recent past over the inadequacy of these sentences to punish the offender and serve as a public deterrence. This Court must take into account those community sentiments and impose a sentence that will sufficiently punish the offender and serve as a deterrent for other potential rapists.

The victim suffered enormously at the hands of this accused and his friends. She was violated, humiliated and demeaned in front of her own family and her family’s foreign guest. Memories of this terrible ordeal will remain with her and haunt her for as long as she lives. Although the sufferings she went through at the time of this terrible ordeal and memories of them in the future was and will be immense, and for which she will not be personally compensated, the sentence I impose should, in a small way, give her some sense of relief and satisfaction to her husband and the family’s visitor who witnessed the rape being committed in front of their very own eyes, and other friends and relatives both within and abroad, who shared in the victim’s self-respect and dignity, that justice after all has been done to one of her perpetrators.

In all the circumstances, I consider that a sentence of 25 years imprisonment in hard labour is appropriate and I impose the same. I order that this sentence be served concurrently with the sentence for robbery given by Justice Kirriwom, but be made cumulative to the 5 years sentence for rape he is currently serving.
________________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the State : Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the accused : Public Solicitor