Mulele v Director of Public Prosecutions; Poini v Director of Public Prosecutions [1986] SBCA 6; [1985-1986] SILR 145 (14 January 1986)

1985-1986 SILR 145

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Appeal Case Nos. 5 and 6 of 1985

MULELE

v

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS,

POINI

v

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Solomon Islands Court of Appeal
(Wood C.J., Connolly and Kapi JJA)
Criminal Appeal Case Nos. 5 and 6 of 1985

14 January 1986 at Honiara
Judgment 14 January 1986

Sentence - defilement - policy formulated.

Facts:

The appellant Poini, age 26, was sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment on two counts of defilement c/s 134(1) of the Penal Code committed with a girl 12 to 12½ years of age. The appellant Mulele, age 40, was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on one count of defilement committed with a girl 13 years of age who since the age of 5 had been living with the appellant as his step daughter. The girl became pregnant and gave birth to a child as a result.

Held:

1. Neither sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing policy for future guidance is that each case must depend on its own facts, but matters to be considered among others are disparity of age, abuse of a position of trust, subsequent pregnancy and the character of the girl.

No cases considered

Kenneth Brown for First Appellant
John Muria for Second Appellant
Thomas Kama for Respondent

Wood CJ, Connolly and Kapi JJA: For the purposes of this judgment the Court gives its reasons in both appeals before it this afternoon that is to say Criminal Appeals Nos. 5 and 6 of 1985. In the case of Bradly Poini the appellant was sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment on two counts of defilement c/s 134(1) of the Penal Code. The girl involved was 12 to 12½ years old at the time and the appellant 26. There was evidence that they subsequently became infatuated but on the other hand on the first occasion there was no suggestion that the girl consented. In the case of Reuben Mulele the appellant was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on one count of defilement c/s 134(1) of the Penal Code. The girl involved was nearly 13 years old but since the age of 5 had been living with her mother and the appellant who was her stepfather. The appellant was 40 years of age. Both appellants pleaded guilty and were first offenders. The difference between the two appellants is the disparity of age, 26 and 12½ in one case and 40 and 13 in the other. Also the position of trust in the case of Reuben Mulele as the girl’s stepfather. The girl also as a result became pregnant and gave birth to a child.

It was submitted by the defence that the Commissioner erred in saying that these offences were increasing but after counsel’s argument it appears that the learned Commissioner was correct in his opinion. The learned Commissioner properly directed himself on all the aspects of these cases and we cannot see that he erred in any way in assessing sentences. Neither sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

We were asked to formulate a sentencing policy for future guidance. Each case must depend on its own facts but matters which would be considered amongst others are on the one hand disparity of age, abuse of a position of trust and a subsequent pregnancy and on the other hand the character of the girl herself.

We therefore decline to give leave to appeal in both cases.