Regina v Sialoha [2014] SBHC 116; HCSI-CRC 393 of 2010 (24 April 2014)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)

Criminal Case Number 393 of 2010

REGINA

-V-

GIBSON SIALOHA

Hearing: 17th April 2014
Sentence: 24th April 2014

F. Joel (Ms) for the Crown;
M. Holara and R. Olutimayin (Ms.) for the Defendant.

Palmer CJ.

1. The defendant has been convicted of the offence of rape following a guilty plea.
   
2. The victim was on her way back from the beach when she was accosted by the defendant and told to go with him. When she enquired where he wanted her to go he responded in an angry tone which caused her to be frightened. She also observed that he had a hand-saw with him at that time and was intoxicated with homemade alcohol called "kaleve" in the local dialect.
   
3. He also threatened to harm her if she shouted. She complied with his demand out of fear and went to the grave yard area as directed where the rape took place.
   
4. He then left her and she followed him. At some point along the way he told her not to tell anyone. She continued walking until she met up with a cousin sister and her boyfriend. She reported the matter to her and later when she came to Honiara a couple of days after to police.
   
5. In his submissions, Mr. Holara for the defendant sought to point out that there were little or no aggravating features that accompanied the rape of the victim in this case. He asked the court to take this into account.
   
6. He pointed out that no violence over and above the force necessary to commit the rape was used; that is, minimal force only was used. Secondly, although the defendant had a hand-saw in his hand, it was never used to threaten the victim with directly and that its presence was more coincidental.
   
7. Thirdly, the rape was not repeated. After the alleged rape the defendant got up and left. Mr. Holara also pointed out that there was no pre-planning or premeditation involved and that the incident was more opportunistic than anything else.
   
8. Fifthly, the defendant had no previous convictions and that this was his first time to appear in court. He also submitted that no further sexual indignities were committed on the victim. He also referred to the age, being 22 years, of the victim at the time of the commission of the offence. Where the victim is either very old or young, the court was entitled to view that as an aggravating feature. Having said that, I think it is equally important to bear in mind that any rape is a serious violation of the dignity and personality of the victim and is not to be considered any less serious because of age.
   
9. In his mitigation, Mr. Holara raised a number of factors for the court to take particular note of. First was the guilty plea, which he submits was taken at the first opportunity. He points out that the defendant had not been given opportunity earlier it seems to consider a guilty plea until he took over carriage of the case and raised the matter with him, whereupon agreed to enter a plea thereafter. He says this should be given the benefit of an early plea for the court-saving benefits in not having to hold a trial bearing in mind the remoteness and isolation of the island, difficulties in transportation and the extra costs that would have been incurred if witnesses needed to be brought over to the trial. Also the victim was spared the trauma of having to give evidence if the trial had been contested.
   
10. I accept submissions of Counsel Holara on this point and give credit for an early plea.
    
11. The second mitigating factor raised was the delay factor. The offence was committed on 15 February 2007 and reported to police on 21 February 2007, but the accused was only arrested some three years later on 10 June 2010 and placed in custody until granted bail on 29 September 2010. He was rearrested on 9 October 2012 and has been in custody since. Mr. Holara pointed out that in total there has been some four to five years delay.
    
12. Ms. Joel for the Prosecution on the other hand points out that part of the reason for the delay was transportation difficulties in travelling to the island to attend to the scene of the crime and conducting investigation. She also pointed out that part of the delay was due to the defendant himself absconding bail. After he was released on bail on September 2010, he failed to attend court on several occasions[1]. On 22 June 2012 a bench warrant was issued. He was rearrested on 9 October 2012 and has been in custody since.
    
13. I note he has had to wait for a further 18 months or so for a trial date to be fixed, which is a long time to wait for a trial date. His case should have been given priority to be heard over other cases where an accused is on bail. I accept and give credit as well for the element of delay in this case.
    
14. I take note of his personal circumstances as well, that he is married and that he has a young family, three children, ages seven, four and three, and elderly parents, all of whom rely on him for support. I also accept his guilty plea as being consistent with remorse and a willingness to change.
    
15. These factors however must be balanced with the manner in which the offence was committed, aggravated by the use of homemade alcohol. This court reiterates its stand against this type of offences and an immediate custodial sentence is inevitable.
    
16. A sentence of 5 years would have been appropriate in such circumstances. Taking into account your guilty plea and the delay factor I am satisfied the sentence should be reduced to one of 3 years. The period spent in custody is to be taken into account.
    

Orders of the Court:

1. Enter conviction on a guilty plea for rape and impose sentence of 3 years to be served.
   
2. The period spent in custody is to be taken into account.
   

The Court.

---

^[1] 22 October 2010; 9 December 2011, 25 May 2012 and 22 June 2012.