State v Simpson [2025] PGNC 444; N11591 (26 September 2025)

N11591

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 1440 & 1443 OF 2024

THE STATE

V

SETH SIMPSON

LAE: KANGWIA J.
24, 26 SEPTEMBER 2025

CRIMINAL LAW – persistent sexual abuse – abuse involving sexual penetration on two adopted daughters over a period of time – one impregnated – prevalence of offence - deterrent sentence warranted despite guilty plea by first time offender.

Cases cited
Goli Golu v State [1979] PNGLR 653
Stanley Sabiu v The State (2007) SC866
Chris Awin v The State (2008) SCR 55 of 2005

Counsel
P. Matana, for the State
J. Steven, for the defence

1. KANGWIA J: Seth Simpson appears for sentence after he was convicted on his guilty plea to two counts of persistent sexual abuse pursuant to s 229D (1) & (6) of the Criminal Code.
   
2. It is alleged that the offender and his wife who are community health workers adopted two sisters named Bathsheba and Clara from the wife’s relatives. Thereafter the offender became the adoptive father of the two girls. By the nature of their employment, the husband and wife worked in shifts. When one of them was at work the other stayed back with the girls.
   
3. The abuse on Bathsheba started in 2011 when she was 7 years old. It was on an unknown date when the wife was at work, and the offender was alone with her. The offender used his hand to touch the girl’s vagina, and he continued to do it. Every time he touched her, he would tell her not to report him. When the girl reached 10 years they moved to Lae.
   
4. The first time the offender sexually penetrated Bathsheba was on an unknown date in 2017 after they had moved to Lae. He called Bathsheba into their room, took off her clothes and sexually penetrated her. The act continued till it was reported.
   
5. The abuse on Clara started on a New Year’s Eve in Lae while the wife was at work. The offender remained in the house with Clara after telling everyone else to go celebrate new years mass. He then took off her clothes and sexually penetrated her. He continued with the act even after they moved location from Lae.
   
6. During the abuse the offender would tell the girls that the money he spent on them entitled him to do these things.
   
7. Having fed up with the offenders approaches Clara delivered a letter to her neighbours who notified the mother. When the mother returned from work Clara revealed everything that the offender had done to her. At the same time Bathsheba went and revealed what the offender had done to her. The offender was reported and charged.
   
8. He is believed to be 31 years old and married with the two adopted daughters now the victims of the offences. He was employed as a male nurse at Angau Hospital until his incarceration. He has no prior conviction.
   
9. On his allocutus the offender says: “Thank you for time taken by Court to hear my case. I erred and say sorry to God, my wife and children and the community. A child was born was born to Bathsheda who will need support. I ask for leniency with a suspended sentence with probation. I am a first-time offender and employed as a nurse. I can continue to work and support my family.”
   
10. The Pre-Sentence Reports recommends that the offender is a suitable candidate for probation for not less than 6 months or more than 5 years. The report suggests reconciliation as a condition without any input or acceptance by the victims themselves.
    
11. The pre-sentence report is of no assistance without any contribution from the victims and is rejected as inconclusive.
    
12. On his behalf Ms Steven after referring to several comparable sentences submits that a sentence of 10 years is appropriate for each offence to be made cumulative and based on the totality principle the head sentence should be 18 years with deductions for time in custody. The offender is a first-time offender with no prior conviction and expressed remorse. There was no physical violence committed on the victims, and he did not pass any sexually transmitted diseases.
    
13. For the State Ms Matana also after referring to comparable sentences seeks a sentence of 20 to 25 years for each count to be made cumulative because the offences involved two victims. The offences had profound effect on the victims. There were serious breaches of trust as adoptive father and a serious breach of trust towards the biological parents who trusted him to adopt their daughters. The abuse occurred in the comforts of the family home over a long period of time resulting in the elder daughter getting pregnant. Both their educations are affected. The offence is also prevalent.
    
14. The offender was charged under s 299D (1) & (6) of the Criminal Code. These provisions state:
    

229D Persistent sexual abuse of a child

(1) A person who, on two or more occasions engages in conduct in relation to a particular child constitutes an offence against this division is guilty of a crime of persistent sexual abuse of a child.

Penalty: subject to subsection (6) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years.
(6) If one or more of the occasions involved an act of penetration, an offender against Subsection (1) is guilty of a crime and is liable, subject to Section 19 to life imprisonment.

15. The offence of persistent sexual abuse carries a maximum penalty not exceeding 15 years. Where sexual penetration is involved, the maximum prescribe penalty is life imprisonment. The offender is facing the latter. The abuse he committed involved sexual penetration.
    
16. However, the maximum prescribed penalty is in practice reserved for the worst category of each offence. (See Goli Golu v State (1979) PNGLR 653).
    
17. This is a case in which irreparable damage has been done to the future life of two teenage girls for which there is no remedy by someone who was looked up to for protection from harm and danger. They will no doubt live with the stigma of being mistreated by their adoptive father for the rest of their lives which undoubtedly will be long unless one’s life is prematurely terminated. Under the circumstances the conduct of the offender demands retributive justice more than anything else.
    
18. For sentencing both counsels have handed up eloquent submissions and spoken on what would be an appropriate penalty for each offender which are adopted in the decision.
    
19. There is no formula or guideline to be followed in sentencing for sexual offences. Each offender is normally sentenced according to the prevailing circumstances of each case. The sentences-imposed by the Courts in this country are varied. Some are high while others are low. Supreme Courts have suggested guidelines and are continuing to make suggestion. Unfortunately, not all suggestions by the Supreme Courts are strictly followed because of the simple reason that all offences are not the same. There may be similarities and variances in the offences that visit the Courts regularly, but not all are identical.
    
20. For sentencing in sexual offences, the Supreme Court in Stanley Sabiu v the State (2007) SC866 suggested a starting point of 15 years imprisonment for the offence of penile penetration. In Chris Awin v the State (2008) SCR 55 of 2005 the Supreme Court in substituting a sentence of 25 years with 18 years for digital penetration held that sentence for digital penetration should be lower than penile because penile penetration is attached with sexually transmitted diseases. I would suggest that where a court is considering an appropriate sentence for sexual offences committed on children under 12 years of age an appealing proposition to be embraced is the view that younger the victim, higher the penalty should be. It is common sense that vulnerability of a younger child would be higher than an older child.
    
21. Sexual offences are prevalent in this country and more so in Morobe. The offender adds to the statistic. The prevalence of the offence reflects the type of people we are with no moral attributes.
    
22. In the present case the offences were committed when the victims were under the age of 16 years being 8 years for Bathsheda and a similar age for Clara.
    
23. It appears the offender’s actions upon the victims were deliberately engineered for self gratification. He took advantage of the vulnerability of the two girls. He was driven by pure lust and nothing else. How remorseful he may be, serious irreparable damage has been done to his two adopted daughters who will live with the stigma all their lives. One has already borne a child from the offender’s actions. Deterrent sentences are warranted to curtail such behaviour from becoming a culture.
    
24. In line with the Sabiu case the offender shall be sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for each offence to be served cumulatively to total 30 years. There are two victims and the offences occurred at different times and places.
    
25. However, under the totality principle the head sentence shall be 26 years. From the 26 years the time in pre-sentence custody shall be deducted and the balance shall be served at CIS Buimo.
    

Lawyer for the State: Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the defence: Public Solicitor