Regina v Teo - Judgment [2014] SBHC 27; HCSI-CRC 311 of 2012 (15 April 2014)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)
Criminal Case No. 311 of 2012

REGINA

v

HICKSON TEO JUNIOR

Date of Hearing : 3, 4, 18 March and 8 April 2014
Date of Judgment : 15 April 2014

S.Ngava for the Prosecution
J R Brook for the Defence

JUDGMENT

1. The Defendant, Hickson Teo Junior is charged with one count of rape, contrary to section 136 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the charge are that the Defendant on 11 October 2012, at Balasuna River side, in the Guadalcanal Province, raped the complainant Priscilla Jonas. The Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge when he was arraigned.
   
2. The agreed facts of this case show that the alleged rape "the Offence" was committed by the Defendant on the complainant on Thursday 11 October 2012 between 5:00pm and 6:00pm at the Kaotave School compound, at the Balasuna River Side in the Guadalcanal Province.
   
3. Dr. Kenton Sade's examination of the complainant's female genital organs after the offending showed a fresh graze on the perineum, with some fresh blood seen at the inferior area of the vagina, vaginal hymen was absent with rugged edges. The clinical finding of the doctor was that there was recent vaginal penetration. A high vaginal swab (HVS) was not taken as none was available during the time of the examination. The medical report, Exhibit 1, was tendered and admitted by the court as an agreed fact.
   
4. The Defendant varied his not guilty plea after the medical report was admitted by the court. The variation was that he now admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant as set out in the information.
   
5. The critical issue in this case now is whether the Defendant sexual intercourse with the complainant "without her consent".
   
6. The Complainant's evidence is that on 11 October 2012 she was a student of Kaotave Primary School doing standard 6. On that date, she went to the river to wash clothes. On her way she met her mother Festina Joy near their house and Mrs Tolain in her garden about 50 meters to the river. Upon reaching the river, she changed from the trousers she was wearing into her dress. She then moved to the side of the river facing the river with her back to the bush behind her. When she was scrubbing the clothes, a person approached from her behind and threw a piece of cloth over her eyes and pulled her backwards to the bush near them. She thought that the person would kill her. When they reached the bush, the person stepped on her legs and she fell to the ground on her back. The person quickly mounted from her abdomen. She struggled with the person as the clothe still covered her eyes. The person pressed her down and lifted up her dress. The person then used both of his knees to spread her legs, moved closer, and penetrated his penis into her vagina three times. While she was crying, the person heard her mother shouting and he removed the cloth from her eyes and escaped from the scene. It was then that she recognised the Defendant a student at Kaotave Vocational School who had sexual intercourse with her. She went to the river to wash herself and was on her way home when she met her mother on the road still crying.
   
7. The Defendant's evidence is that he came to the river to swim. He met the complainant washing clothes. After having conversation with her for some time they agreed to be friends. They moved into the bush and kissed each other. He stimulated her vagina with his finger, which they both enjoyed. He felt his vagina was wet. The complainant lay down on his shirt and they had sexual intercourse still kissing each other. He ejaculated into her vagina with her consent. She gave her pant to him to clean himself. In his evidence, he said they saw a boy named Job who the Complainant told him was one of the boys who liked to make friendship with her but she refused. He said Job confronted him and then left to the place where he left the Complainant. He had a bath at the river and returned to the school. He mentioned person called Job but not his other name, even though he said that Job was also a student of Kaotave School.
   
8. The complainant described the Defendant's evidence as false when it was put to her by counsel for the Defendant. She denied that the Defendant sexual intercourse with her with her consent.
   
9. The Complainant and the Defendant did not know each other before the alleged offence was committed. The Defendant said he stimulated the Complainant's vagina while they were kissing and he felt her vagina wet. He said when he had sexual intercourse with her, his penis fully penetrated her vagina easily.
   
10. But if the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the Complainant with her consent as claimed by the Defendant, then how did the graze on the Complainant's perineum inflicted? The perineum is the area of the female body between the anus and the orifice (opening of the vagina)[1]. The view of this court is that it was inflicted at the moment when as she described as the Defendant quickly jumping onto her abdomen to have sexual intercourse with her when he knocked her down to the ground. I do not accept the Defendant's evidence even though it was calmly given. It does not have the ring of truth but one, which was thought out as his evidence for the trial.
    
11. I convict the Defendant on the offence of rape.
    

THE COURT

---

^[1] I see Lauver’s guide to Forensic Medicine by Bernard Knight.