Regina v Pautangata [2011] SBHC 39; Criminal Case 166 of 2011 (7 June 2011)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)
Criminal Case Number 166 of 2011

REGINA

v.

GLASS PAUTANGATA

HEARING: 3 June 2011
SENTENCE: 7 June 2011

E. Kelesi for the Crown
B. Ifuto'o for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.:

You have pleaded guilty to a charge of rape. This is a serious offence with a maximum sentence of up to life imprisonment. I note your early plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. You indicated what sort of plea you would enter when you were committed by the Magistrates' Court. I take into account the utility of such a plea in saving court time and expense, especially when the witnesses in this case are from another island, Bellona Island. You have also saved the victim and witnesses the trauma of having to re-live that incident. In giving credit for that guilty plea, I must balance that however, with the fact that the prosecution case against you was very strong. You were caught red-handed at the home of the victim and therefore the chances of a conviction even if a not guilty plea was entered would have been almost certain.

I note you are a person without previous convictions and this is your first time to appear in court. I give credit for that.

I note what your counsel has told me that you are remorseful for what you have done. This is consistent with your guilty plea. I also note that you have accepted that what you did was wrong and that you should be punished for it. Prospect for rehabilitation in your case is good and there is little risk of re-offending.

I take into account that this was a one off incident and not repetitive. There was no physical violence, harm or threat involved.

I also note what your counsel has sought to submit that this offence was committed when you were drunk but that is hardly an excuse, more an aggravating factor.

On the other hand there are aggravating features to this case which cannot be ignored. First, this was an invasion of the privacy and security of her home, her little castle as well as the invasion/violation of her person. The court views with graveness the invasion of a home as a separate offence in itself. This is to be contrasted to other instances where no home invasion also occurs. Any person in Solomon Islands is entitled to feel safe and secure in their home. In English law a person's home is sometimes described as their castle, which typically in olden days, is an impregnable fortress; the picture painted is that it should not be broken into at any cost without permission. It is immaterial whether it is a permanent dwelling house with doors and walls or just a makeshift home. Many homes in the rural areas do not have any secure doors or even walling, but that does not make any difference, it is still their castle and should be treated with respect. The law takes a tough stand against this type of invasion of the home, a fortiori, when committed under cover of darkness. The law treats house breaking committed at night differently to one committed during the day time. House breaking at night time is called burglary and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment as opposed to a similar offence committed during the day time which carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years. Night time is when people retire to their homes for sleep and recuperation. In this instance when you should be sleeping in your own house you deliberately went out of your home and entered the privacy of her home to commit the offence.

Secondly, the violation was committed at her most vulnerable time, when she was deep in sleep, after having woken up throughout the night to look after her sick baby. Having woken up for most of the night, she was entitled to have a peaceful rest without having to be violated in such an undignified manner. She was so tired it seems that she was hardly aware of what was going on until she woke up and caught you as you were getting away from her.

Thirdly, this is the invasion of a young married victim, who is also a mother with a family. She is married with young children at her home. What you have done violates her and her status as a married woman and a mother and inevitably impacts her marriage, her status in the community and her family.

Thirdly she is not someone that you are in a position of relationship with. This is an aggravating factor. You are a stranger to her in that regard and therefore this has been a violation of her dignity, personality and value as a woman.

I have considered carefully the numerous cases that have been submitted by your Counsel and Counsel for the Crown but note that this case can be distinguished on its facts.

I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case balancing all the mitigating and aggravating factors together that an immediate custodial sentence of 3½ years should be imposed. The period spent in custody to be taken into account.

Orders of the Court:

1. Convict the defendant of the offence of rape.
2. Impose a sentence of 3½ years.
3. The period spent in custody to be taken into account.
   

The Court.