Teikamata v Regina [2006] SBHC 34; HC-CRC 470 of 2004 (2 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 470 of 2004

PATRICK TEIKAMATA

–v-

REGINA

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(KABUI, J.).

Dates of Hearing: 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st March, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 24th April, 27th, July and 1st August, 2006.
Date of Judgment: 2nd August 2006.

M. McColm with J. Seuika for the Crown
I. Khan for the Accused

JUDGMENT

Kabui, J: This trial was adjourned on 6th April 2006 to 9:30am on Wednesday 19th April 2006. None of the parties appeared on Wednesday 19th April 2006 at 9:30am. The Court assumed then that the absence of counsel from both sides was due the riot that occurred on Tuesday, 18th April 2006 in Honiara following the election of the former Prime Minister, Snyder Rini. A number of overseas guests staying at the former Honiara Casino Hotel had been directly affected by that riot. The Honiara Casino Hotel having been attacked by the rioters, the hotel guests had to flee in a hurry. The defence counsel was one of them and he immediately left for Australia. He however returned but this case had not been re-listed for further hearing and completion for over two months.

This delay in my view is excessive because Iam no longer a judge but for section 81 of the Constitution which allows me to complete this trial which I commenced when I was still a judge. The accused must have also been wondering why there was this lull in his trial. I had reminded the Registrar several times about re-listing of the trial even to the extent of telling him that the defence counsel had arrived back in Honiara. The accused is entitled to a speedy trial as is his right under the Constitution.

The accused is Patrick Teikamata. He was charged with raping Anita, a girl of about fifteen years old at the time of the alleged rape. The alleged rape took place in a room in a house occupied by Joe Oge at Panatina on 27th July 2004 in the late afternoon. On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. He is however innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The Crown bears the burden of proof against him beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. Unless the Crown has discharged that burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the accused remains innocent.

The issue to be proved by the Crown

The case for the defence at trial was that the act of penetration was not disputed but lack of consent was. The accused in his evidence said that Anita had consented to him having sexual intercourse with her. The issue is therefore consent or lack of it. The Crown will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent on the part of Anita to having sexual intercourse with the accused.

Anita’s sworn evidence.

On Tuesday 27th July 2004, Anita went to Panatina by bus to collect her clothes in Joe Oge’s house. Having dropped off at the bus-stop, she walked to Joe Oge’s house and got there well after 3pm in the afternoon. She went into the house. Inside the house were Andrew Teitaka, (CW11) and the accused. She, Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), and the accused then ate rice with tayio. She sat by herself whilst eating. Andrew Teitaka, (CW11) and the accused were sitting at the table, also eating. After she finished her food, she took her plate and placed it inside the sink in the kitchen. She washed it and left it there.

The accused gave her a bottle of water from the fridge. At that time, Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), was still sitting at the table. After she had finished drinking, she returned the water bottle to the fridge. The accused then followed her and she felt his penis poking through his clothing against her back. She remonstrated with him saying "what are you trying to do to me" or words to that effect. The accused said he liked her.

She then proceeded into a room to collect her clothes. The accused told Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), to leave which he did. The accused followed her into the room and pulled her hand. The accused also locked the door to the room. She again remonstrated with him and said "what are you doing to me" or something to that effect. The accused laid her down and took off her clothes. She again remonstrated with him and shouted saying, "what now you like dium long me" or in English, "what is it that you like to do to me" or something to that effect. The accused said "be quite". The accused took off her pant and lay her on a mat in the room. She threatened that she would report the accused to Joe Oge whose house they were inside.

The accused held her shoulders, opened his trousers and pulled it down to his knees. He pulled down his pant and put his penis inside her vagina. His penis caused her pain. The accused then pushed his penis into her vagina the second time. At that time, her cousin sister walked into the house and the accused got up and ran away and went into the toilet. She was still on the mat and blood came out of her. She stood up and went into the bathroom and washed herself. She was feeling weak. Blood was still coming out of her vagina and she was experiencing pain in her vagina.

She left the bathroom and went into the veranda but the blood never stopped so she returned to the bathroom. Mary Rose then arrived. Mary Rose, (CW13), and later the accused went into the bathroom where Anita was. Mary Rose, (CW13), asked Anita what happened and Anita said the accused did it to her whereupon the accused whispered to Anita not to say anything. The accused was then by the door when he whispered to Anita.

Anita then wanted to change her clothes and told Mary Rose to get her a change of clothes. Mary Rose, (CW13) then told the accused to get a towel and a pad which he did. Anita used a piece of clothe as a pad to control the bleeding from her vagina. Mary Rose, (CW13), then told Anita that they should return to the Fishing Village where Anita had been staying before she came to Oge’s house.

The accused’s sworn evidence.

The accused had met Anita before the date the alleged rape took place. Elrina, (CW3), introduced Anita casually to the accused. So the accused knew Anita but not too well and not for a long time.

The first meeting.

The accused came to know Anita on Saturday 17th July 2004 in Oge’s house. He was in the kitchen preparing food when Elrina, (CW3), introduced him to Anita; she was folding some clothes on a cushion chair. Elrina, (CW3), and Anita were sitting on the cushion chair and they laughed. The accused was still in the kitchen. Anita looked at the accused and smiled. The accused winked back at her and she opened her legs and pointed down to her private part and said to the accused, "you likem?" which in English, means, "you like it?" The accused just smiled and continued preparing the food. Elrina then left. The accused served the food. He took a plate of food and gave it to Anita, saying, "kaikai belong you ia" which in English means, "this is your food." Anita took the plate and pointing to her private part said, "kaikai belong you ia too," which in English, means, "this is also your food." The accused asked her if they could spend time together but she declined saying that she was spending the night in the house in any event. The accused finished eating and then went to town to drop off some boys. He then returned to the house in the evening. Elrina, (CW3) and Anita were preparing dinner. They had dinner and Anita again told the accused that it was not time for them to talk. After dinner, they watched TV and then they all went to bed.

On Sunday, the accused went to town to deliver letters after breakfast. When he returned, Anita had gone. However, Elrina, (CW3), told the accused that Anita had told her to tell the accused that she was coming back to the house.

The accused also met Mary Rose, (CW13), in Oge’s house on a Friday in July 2004. He asked her about Anita and Mary Rose, (CW13), told him that Anita had been whipped by her uncle and was unable to walk to go anywhere. The reason for her being whipped was that Anita had been going around with a boy from Simbo. She had been absent from her uncle’s house for two weeks.

The second meeting.

As has been said, the accused admitted that he had sexual intercourse with Anita on 27th July 2004 but with her consent. He agreed that he was at Oge’s house with Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), when Anita arrived there on Tuesday 27th July 2004. She had come with a boy. That boy was outside the house. He told her to call the boy into the house but Anita said in Pidgin, "you no worriem hem. Me come for you" which in English means, "do not worry about him; I have come for you." He was then preparing food in the kitchen. She walked up and said she was hungry. He told her in Pidgin, "Dry rice nomore hem stap. You save usim with sauce" which in English, means, "Only dry rice is available but you can have it with sauce". She said, "alright." She then served the rice on a plate. He said in Pidgin, "Sorry there is only one tayio here. I will share it with Elrina and you." He opened the tin and she moved closer to him. She held his penis with her right hand and squeezed it saying in Pidgin, "you no liar too much." Whilst putting the tayio on the rice, he asked to make love to her. She said yes but after food. They were sitting down together with Andrew whilst eating. After finishing her food she asked for water and he gave it to her. After that she took the plate and put it into the sink. She then said, "What about Andrew. Is he staying in the house or outside" He told Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), to leave and to alert them if Elrina, (CW3), or Oge was coming to the house. Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), did leave the room. The accused walked back to Anita and she checked the rooms. He gave her the keys and then she gave them back to him and he put the keys away. Anita did the final check of the rooms. At that time, he was already in the room. Anita came back into the room. He closed the door and she said "hurry up before anyone come." They were standing up and kissing. She was saying, "hurry up". She then removed her pants. She then said, "by me lay down long bed long floor" which in English, means, "I will lay on the bed on the floor" or something to that effect. She then sat down. She kept on saying, "hurry up." She said, " lay down long me, me no like lookim private part belong me" which in English means, "Lay on top of me so that I do not see my private part." She held his shoulders and drew him to her. She said, "Let me hold your penis. I will insert it for you because I do not want to see my private part." She did what she said. She removed her dress exposing her breasts. She asked to be kissed which the accused did. She kept on saying, "hurry up" and shaking her bum and saying, "hem now wanem you likem," which in English means, "That’s it, what you like."

She was enjoying herself and shaking her bum and saying, " "hem now you likem," again in English means "That’s what you like." The accused used no force. She at one point said, "why now you no bosta quick before Elrina come," which in English means, "Why didn’t you ejaculate before Elrina came?" They were having sex for about five to six minutes before Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), signalled that someone was coming. The accused then pulled up his trousers and went into the bathroom.

The thrust of the accused’s evidence.

The thrust of the accused’s story is that upon being introduced to each other by Elrina on Saturday 17th July 2004, Anita began to entice the accused by her amorous conduct. In fact, Anita was the moving force in developing the friendly relationship between her and the accused. Anita’s conduct towards the accused on the date of the alleged rape was more or less a continuation of her general conduct on the date of their first meeting on 17th July 2004. That is, Anita was the moving force in enticing the accused towards herself resulting in having consensual sexual intercourse. That is to say, her previous conduct before the date of the alleged rape was consistent with a girl who was serious about her relationship with the accused and adamant to establishing it within the shortest possible time.

She had passed a message after the first meeting that she was coming back to Oge’s house impliedly to see the accused. When she did not show up, Mary Rose explained that she was unable to return to Oge’s house because she had been whipped by her uncle and could not leave to return to Oge’s house. When Anita was bleeding and the bleeding did not stop, Mary Rose reminded the accused that she had told him on a previous occasion that Anita had missed her period for one and half week and had sought assistance to abort any possible pregnancy by the use of custom medicine. The implication was that the bleeding from Anita might have been the result of an abortion process.

One way of understanding the accused’s evidence is that Anita was infatuated with him, perhaps love at first sight. Another is that the accused was infatuated with Anita. Anita’s evidence however refutes the conclusion that she was infatuated with the accused. Perhaps, it was the accused who was infatuated with Anita. That is, it was the other way round.

The bleeding from Anita’s vagina.

According to Anita, she saw blood coming out of her vagina after the accused got up and ran to the bathroom. Bleeding was continuing when she later stood up and went to the bathroom. She was weak and her vagina was sore. She left the bathroom and later went into the veranda part of the house. The bleeding did not stop and she had to return to the bathroom from the veranda. She fainted twice. The first time was when she was on her way to the bus-stop and the second time was at the sink at Oge’s house. She had vomited also. She must have been dizzy from loss of blood. Subsequently, she had to be transported to the Central Hospital by ambulance to receive treatment.

Medical examination.

An internal pelvic examination of Anita at 8.30 pm that same day of the alleged rape showed a superficial laceration along the right aspect stretching nearly the whole length of her vagina. The bleeding was controlled by the application of a vaginal pack. She had also been treated with antibiotic and was discharged some days later.

What had caused the bleeding?

The thrust of the medical evidence is that the main suspect for the bleeding was the laceration in the vagina. The laceration was however superficial. That is, it was on the surface and was not deep. Accordingly to Dr. Maesukanar, (CW6), the laceration could have been caused by a hard object such as an erect penis, a finger or hard or solid object. The doctor discounted the abortion process option, although he accepted that laceration could be a sign of the abortion process. He said he was familiar with abortion procedure and could have recognized its existence. The use of custom medicine as alleged by the accused in bringing about an abortion is by practice administered orally by drinking a solution of the custom medicine mixed with water. The vagina is never physically touched for the purpose of procuring abortion. The fact that Dr. Maesukanar, (CW6), discounts abortion is consistent with custom medicine practice. (See R .v. Josiah Tahinao, Criminal Case No. 369 of 2004). There is also medical evidence that Anita was ovulating at the time of the alleged rape. The hymen was obvious but without bruises or cuts though rapture might have occurred previously. Menstruation was not ruled out as a possibility at the time of the alleged rape.

Counsel for the accused did not accept or concede that the act of sexual intercourse did cause the bleeding to occur. The undisputed fact is that there was a laceration in the vagina as described in the Dr.’s report. So the question is whether the source of the bleeding was the laceration in the vagina or menstruation. Menstruation was merely a possibility but there is no evidence to confirm that possibility as a fact. The laceration however is a fact. Dr. Maesukunar, (CW6), had confirm in evidence that the bleeding was coming from the laceration in the vagina and it was fresh blood, although he had given answers to hypothetical questions about the abortion process and the colour of blood in a menstruation situation or abortion as compared to blood coming from a laceration as was the case with Anita.

The fact that Anita had experienced pain in her vagina soon after the act of sexual intercourse was completed is an indication that her vagina had been injured, contrary to the case of normal menstruation flow of blood where the vagina suffers no injury. Any suggestion that the source of bleeding was menstruation is irrelevant in this case because if the Crown evidence negatives consent, the offence of rape is proven. The laceration and subsequent bleeding are collateral only.

The accused’s evidence compared with Anita’s evidence.

The truth lies in the credibility of either Anita or the accused. There are two conflicting versions of facts, one by Anita and the other by the accused, there being no eye witnesses to the alleged rape incident.

Anita said the accused had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. That is, the accused forced her to have sex with him. The purpose of her going to Oge’s house on Tuesday was to collect her clothes which she had left in the house as she was going back to the Western Province the next day. She admitted being introduced to the accused by Elrina during her first visit to Oge’s house. However, on being cross-examined, she denied some of the things the accused said about her conduct during the first meeting on the Saturday before the date of the alleged rape. That is, she denied that she had looked at the accused and smiled and that the accused winked back at her and she opened her legs, pointing to her private part and asking the accused whether he liked it. She denied that she had pointed to her private part and said to the accused when being served food by the accused that his food was there being her private part. She could not recall being asked by the accused that they should spend some time together and that she said that she was spending the night in the house and that she could not speak to him because the boys were in the house. She denied that she had told the accused with a smile at dinner time the same day that they could not talk. She denied that she had told Elrina, (CW3), to tell the accused that she would return to the house.

Elrina, (CW3), on being cross-examined, denied having been told by Anita to tell the accused any message as suggested by the accused in his evidence. Anita denied having been whipped by her uncle for anything.

Mary Rose, (CW13), also denied having told the accused that Anita had been whipped by her uncle and was not able to move around because of her association with a boy from Simbo. She also denied telling the accused that Anita had missed her period and had attempted to abort pregnancy by taking custom medicine. She also denied that she had told the accused at the Central Hospital that Anita had told her that if anyone should ask about her condition, they were to say that Anita had been assaulted on the road on her way to Oge’s house.

Jack Tuita, (CW5), said that Anita was staying with him at the Fishing Village. He said he was not aware of any whipping being done on Anita nor was he aware of Anita being sick at any time. Everlyn Tofai, (CW4), Anita’s mother, and Queen Piqe, (CW7), Anita’s aunty, both confirmed that Anita had not been sick at any time. In fact, Anita had asked the permission of Janet Sade, (CW9), to go to Oge’s house on the day of the alleged rape. She was then healthy and well when she left the Fishing Village to go to Oge’s house. Anita herself said she was not sick before the date of the alleged rape.

Anita also denied some of the things the accused said about her on the date of the alleged rape. On being cross-examined, she denied that when the accused asked her to call the boy who had come with her into the house, she said that she had come for the accused and told the accused not to worry about the boy. She could not recall holding the penis of the accused with her hand and squeezed it saying, "you no liar too much" which in English, means "don’t fool me" whilst the accused was putting tayio on the rice in the kitchen. She denied that the accused asked her to make love and she said yes but after food. What she could recall was that the accused said he liked her and she told him that he was crazy. She denied that she had asked the accused about Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), with the view of asking Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), to leave the room so that they would be alone in the room. She denied that the accused gave her the keys and she went to check the doors to the rooms and then returned the keys to the accused. She denied that she went into the room and closed the door whilst the accused was already in the room waiting for her. She denied that she had told the accused to hurry up. She denied that she told the accused that she was to lay down on the bed or floor and eventually preferred being on the floor. She denied that she sat down voluntarily. She denied having told the accused to lie on top of her because she did not wish to see her private part. She denied holding the accused’s shoulders and drawing him to her. She denied telling the accused that she hold his penis and would insert it for him because she did not wish to see her private part. She denied removing her dress thus exposing her breasts. She denied that she asked the accused to kiss her. She denied repeating to the accused the words, "hurry up." She denied shaking her bum and telling the accused that that was what the accused liked. She denied that she was enjoying herself and shaking her bum. She denied that she was willing to have sex with the accused. She denied asking the accused why it was taking long for the accused to ejaculate. In cross-examination, she repeated that she did not recall that she had told the accused that she was having her period.

Corroboration of Anita’s evidence.

Counsel for the accused argued that there could not be any corroborative evidence in this case. I disagree. Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), had acted as a look-out for the accused. His evidence is important as he was the only person who would have witnessed the behaviour of the accused at the relevant time in the kitchen. In his evidence in chief, he said-

"...After Anita gave bread to the boy outside, accused stood up, went to her and played with her. Accused started to play with her body. He went to the door of the bedroom and told her to come to him. I was sitting down and eating. Accused told her to follow him to the room. Accused played with her and accused told her to follow him into the room. I forgot the exact words, but only telling her to follow him into the room. Anita just laughed. I was sitting at the table. Accused called and then he came over to me and told me to leave the house. He did not tell me why he wanted me to leave the house. I went outside of the house after I made some bread for myself. Anita was standing beside the wall of the kitchen and the accused was standing beside the door of the room. I went back again into the house to have more bread but I did not see them..."

In cross-examination, he said-

"...Anita was in the kitchen. Accused was with me. Then he got up and went and played with her. He was touching her private part. I saw her breast. He had finished eating. I only heard accused telling her to follow him into the bedroom. She was standing beside the wall of the kitchen. I saw him standing near the door of the room. She was standing there. Accused called her. She looked at me and laughed. I did not see her walk to the accused. I went outside..."

Andrew Teitaka’s, (CW1), evidence therefore confirms that the accused did sexually harass Anita in the kitchen area. According to Exhibit 1, the kitchen area of the house is adjacent to the doors in the corridor. Clearly, the accused was accosting Anita in that kitchen area and towards the doors. It is possible that Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), might not have been paying attention to everything that was happening between the accused and Anita but managed to recall only parts of the scene. According to him, there is no doubt that the accused was sexually harassing Anita in the course of accosting her. Anita in her evidence said that she did not consent to being harassed and accosted by the accused. Andrew Teitaka, (CW11), denied that he, Anita and the accused were sitting together and eating at the table as alleged by the accused. According to him, Anita was eating inside the kitchen and only he and the accused were at the table.

The accused’s assertion that Anita herself held his penis and inserted it into her vagina to avoid seeing her own private part does not sit well with the medical evidence. The laceration in the inner part of her vagina which caused bleeding that led to dizziness and eventually medical treatment and admission for a few days at the Central Hospital does not confirm the accused’s evidence that Anita was a willing participant. In fact, the contrary is the case. In her evidence in chief, Anita said-

"...After he took off my pants, he held my shoulders, opened his trousers and pulled it down half-way down his knees. After he pulled his pants, he put his penis into my vagina. I did not want him to have sex with me. He forced me. His penis caused me pain. After that, he pushed it again and my sister came in...Accused pushed his penis into my vagina. He heard my sister coming and so he got up and ran away. He ran into the toilet..."

On being cross-examined, Anita said-

"...I did not tell accused or Andrew where my clothes were. My sister told me that my clothes were in the room. Andrew told me to check for my clothes in any of the rooms. Accused did not know where my clothes were. Accused saw me going into the room. I went into the room before accused spoke to Andrew. I was only in the room for a while when he returned and pulled me back inside the room. He pulled me by the hand. I think it was my right hand. I might have been holding the door with my left. He pulled my right hand and I was pulling the door with my left hand. I was in the room. I heard the accused coming into the room. I saw him and I wanted to run outside but he came in and pushed me. I wanted to run outside in case he did something to me..."

"...He pulled me. I do not know whether he kissed me on the mouth or face etc. I can’t recall this. Accused removed my pants when I was standing up. He held my shoulders and pushed me down. It is not true that I said "quick before anyone come". I can’t recall if I had said anything.

He also took off my skirt...He removed my pants. He was holding my shoulders and pushed me down. I can’t recall whether he pulled down my pant and pushed me down or he did both together. I can’t recall that my pant was removed whilst I was already down on the mat. It is not true that I removed my pant voluntarily. It is not true that I sat down on the floor. He pushed me down. It is not true that I pulled him on top of me. I can’t recall how long he had sex with me. He pushed his penis twice..."

Again, in her evidence in chief, Anita said-

"... I was struggling when the boy inserted his penis into me. I pushed him off but he held onto my shoulders and pushed me back again. I pushed him because I did not want him and he forced me. He pushed me down and I cried. I cried because I did not like him. I cried and I shouted. I called Andrew but he was outside. I called out his name but he never answered me. I called Andrew to come and help me but did not hear me.

If Anita is to be believed, her description of what happened to her is fitting enough to conclude that the accused raped her. If indeed, she had held the accused’s penis and pushed it into her vagina she would have done it with some degree of care so as not to cause her pain and injury. For the inner part of the vagina to be lacerated, the push of the penis must be with considerable force. The vagina must have also been without lubrication, being dry so to speak. It is common sense that the inner part of the vagina is of tender tissue and more so of a young girl such as Anita. An erect penis such as that of the accused forcefully and hurriedly pushed into a dry vagina, which must been the case with Anita, would most likely cause pain in the vagina such as in the case of Anita. If a laceration occurred in so doing then that is the result of that scenario. The accused does not deny that penetration did take place. There is no reason to suggest that anything else had entered Anita’s vagina than the accused’s penis being forced into her vagina. There can be no other explanation for the bleeding that came from Anita’s vagina. I find that the accused’s penis had caused the laceration in Anita’s vagina causing it to bleed. The accused must have been thoroughly shocked to learn that Anita was bleeding after he had sex with her. I do not blame him if he believed that the bleeding must have come from another source. He was obviously concerned about the health of Anita for he was responsible for her condition at that time. I can understand why he was trying to hide from Oge what happened in Oge’s house. He did something wrong inside Oge’s house when both him and Anita were more or less visitors. He did not like anyone to tell Oge or anyone else what had happened to Anita. Also, he was concerned about the health of Anita because if her health had declined, he was directly to be held responsible. This would explain why he was in the Central Hospital as well when Anita was being treated.

Reporting the rape to the Police.

It is interesting to speculate about what Anita would have done if she was not bleeding as she was at that time. One can however argue that she came out with the rape allegation only because she was bleeding and was being asked about what happened.

Anita however did tell Mary Rose, (CW13), whilst in the bathroom that the accused caused the bleeding by saying that the accused did it to her. She later repeated that to Janet Sade, (CW9), at the Central Hospital. Elrina, (CW3), also noticed that Anita was in a state of distress when Anita came out of Elrina’s bedroom but said nothing when Elrina, (CW3), asked whether there was anything wrong before Anita went back into the bathroom. The fact that she was bleeding from a laceration in her vagina was rather a strange occurrence if sexual intercourse was indeed consensual as alleged by the accused. Such state of distress and the fact of bleeding following sexual intercourse with the accused are also corroborative of Anita’s evidence that the accused had raped her.

The evidence of the accused was given in a too detailed a fashion in such a way that the things he said were fabrications on his part. He was rather too articulate, overbearing and arrogant in the way he was giving his evidence. He said Anita was crazy about him. She was seducing him to put it that way. I do not think so. In fact, it was the other way round. The accused somehow thought Anita was fair game and could have her as he did. The fact is that Anita had been traumatized by being raped by the accused rather violently in that the rape was short, sharp and rapidly ended. Anita said she did not consent to having sexual intercourse with the accused. The laceration in her vagina speaks for itself of how much force had been used to effect penetration. The act of sexual intercourse had been prefaced with a persistent amount of sexual harassment by the accused.

She was dizzy when she was in the bathroom. She had just finished eating when the accused allegedly raped her. She was not mentally and physically ready for sexual intercourse to take place at that time. The things said about her by the accused in terms of her amorous conduct are fabrications. The fact that she was shaken by the rapid and violent sexual movements of the accused was enough to cause her to be dizzy coupled with the continuous bleeding.

Anita was only visiting Honiara and was ready to return home the next day when the accused allegedly raped her in Oge’s house. She had a legitimate reason to be in Oge’s house. In fact, she was trying quickly to collect her clothes in one of the rooms when the accused intervened with his agenda and interfered with her intention by forcing her to have sex with him. She gave her evidence in a straight forward manner though shy and took moments to recall details under cross-examination. She was a truthful witness. The fact that she was not able to recall details or not sure about certain facts under cross-examination can only be attributed to the state of mind she was in at that time. She was thoroughly traumatized after the event. She was moving about quite a bit after she came out of the bathroom and back into the bathroom. She later fainted twice. I would believe her evidence even in the absence of corroborating evidence. There is however corroborating evidence in this case. I reject the evidence adduced by the accused as being a fabrication. I do not believe his story.

The charge is made out and accordingly I find him guilty of rape and convict accordingly. The verdict is one of guilty of rape.

Frank O. Kabui
Puisne Judge