R v Maneapia [2020] SBHC 35; HCSI-CRC 512 of 2019 (15 June 2020)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Maneapia
Citation:
Date of decision:	15 June 2020
Parties:	Regina v Gabriel
Date of hearing:	11 June 2020
Court file number(s):	512 of 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:	High Court of Solomon, Honiara Court Room 1
Judge(s):	Palmer CJ
On appeal from:
Order:	Enter conviction for the offence rape Impose sentence of 45 months for rape The period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence and therefore order that it be dated from the period the defendant was remanded in custody, being the 28th May 2019
Representation:	Mrs. R Olutimayin (DPP) , and Ms. Patricia Tabepuda and Ms. L Pellie assisting, for the Crown Mr. L Waroka for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code [Cap 26] s 136 F (1) (a) (b)
Cases cited:	R V Ligiau and Dori [1986] SBHC 15, R V Roberts and Roberts [1982] 4 Cr. App. R. (s) 8, Soni v Reginam [2013] SBCA 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 512 of 2019

REGINA

V

GABRIEL MANEAPIA

Date of Hearing: 11 June 2020
Date of Sentence: 15 June 2020

Mrs. R Olutimayin (DPP), and Ms. Patricia Tabepuda and Ms. L Pellie assisting, for the Crown
Mr. L Waroka for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.

1. You had been charged with the offence of rape contrary to section 136F (1) (a) (b) of the Penal Code [cap. 26] and which you had entered a not guilty plea and a trial held. Part way through the trial however, you decided to change your plea, you were re-arraigned and you entered a guilty plea. I give you credit for doing that and saving the court further time in dealing with your case.
2. Rape is recognized in our law as a very serious offence, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The maximum penalty is reserved for the most serious of cases, the majority have to be considered on their own merits and circumstances, with sentences of varying terms of imprisonment imposed depending on the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors.
3. The offence of rape has always been regarded as a serious crime by the law for it is an offence of violence against the weaker sex, and entails taking advantage of that imbalance by the stronger male accused over the weaker victim and violating her person. I quote: “It is an offence of violence based on a selfish disregard for the rights and feelings of another and is likely to cause, more than almost any other offence, serious and long-lasting harm to the victim”^[1].
4. In most instances, it will attract not only an immediate but more often than not, a lengthy custodial sentence as well. In the case of R. v. Roberts and Roberts^[2], per Lord Lane, in his sentencing remarks, identifies five reasons for this. First, it is to mark the gravity of the offence, its seriousness. Secondly, it is to reflect the public disapproval of the offence. It disturbs the peace and harmony in the home, the family unit and the community. Thirdly, it is to serve as a warning to others, fulfilling the element of deterrence, that those who commit such offence can expect a similar sentence. Fourthly, it is to punish the offender, fulfilling the principle of retribution, where the State through the criminal justice system determines what should be the just and appropriate punishment to be meted out. And finally, it is to protect women and young girls, being members of the weaker sex, the law recognizes the need to protect them from the predatory activities of some men. The length of the sentence will depend on all the circumstances of each case.
5. In her sentencing submissions, the learned Director highlighted the prevalence of the offence in the community, pointing out that about 75% of cases coming before the courts relate in one form or another to sexual offences against women and young girls; a shameful picture for the nation.
6. She points out that the court should consider specific deterrence in such cases sending out a clear message to the community that the law frowns on the levity with which men approach this type of offence with women. She submits that women and children have a right to expect that the institutions set up on their behalf to serve and protect them will do so. This includes the judiciary. I could not agree more.
7. The courts, have continued to frown on this type of offences and have continued to send out a clear signal to the community that those who take the liberty of committing this type of offences will expect an immediate and lengthy custodial sentence.
8. The starting point for rape by an adult without any aggravating or mitigating features in a contested case, is five years, (see R. v. Ligiau and Dori^[3]), which has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal of Solomon Islands in Soni v. Reginam^[4]. In a non-contested case it will obviously be less than five years. In this case, the Defendant entered a guilty plea part-way through the trial, which in the particular circumstances of this case, the benefit of an early guilty plea can be given.
9. I note the aggravating features in this case, that you took advantage of the situation, the proximity and easy access at your gardens, being close to each other, and came upon the complainant suddenly overpowered her, despite her struggle and forced yourself upon her. You disregarded her refusal and raped her. Secondly, the complainant is a married woman, and that you are married to the complainant’s husband’s niece. You took advantage again of the family connections and ties through marriage and pushed aside your responsibilities of trust and respect to commit the offence. The effect of these would be to raise the notional starting point in an upward direction.
10. On the other hand I note the mitigating factors raised on your behalf by your Counsel. I note your personal circumstances, that you are married and have two young children. I note this is your first time to appear in court and have no previous convictions. I also accept you are remorseful and sorry for what has happened, have paid a sum of $500 in compensation according to custom, and that you have reconciled with the victim’s family. This is reflected by your guilty plea part way through.
11. I have also taken this into account and credit is given. Your guilty plea has saved court time and resources, and in this particular case, saved time for other witnesses to be called, including the husband of the victim. I note too that prospects of rehabilitation in your case are good.
12. I also take into account other mitigation factors raised on your behalf by your counsel, that there was no pre planning but more of a spur of the moment incident, that no weapon, threats or other physical violence accompanied the incident and that no other physical injury or psychological trauma was caused.
13. I note what your counsel has also submitted under circumstances of offending, regarding your personal knowledge of the victim, the close proximity of their house to you and that your garden abuts her garden. I note that on the day of the incident you were also at your garden and had interacted with the victim and her son, before taking advantage of the situation and committed the offence of rape, while she was picking cabbage from the other end of the garden.
14. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors together, I am satisfied a sentence of forty five (45) months is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. I give credit for the period already spent in pre-trial custody and direct that it be deducted from your sentence. Accordingly order that the sentence be dated from the period you were taken into custody; I understand you were remanded in custody on the 28^th May 2019. You have a right of appeal against this sentence if aggrieved by it.

Orders of the Court:

1. Enter conviction for the offence of rape.
2. Impose sentence of 45 months for rape.
3. The period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence and therefore order that it be dated from the period the defendant was remanded in custody, being the 28^th May 2019.

The Court.

---

^[1] R. v. Ligiau and Dori [1986] SBHC 15; [1985-1986] SILR 214 (3 September 1986), page 2.
^[2] [1982] 4 Cr. App. R. (S.) 8: Lord Lane CJ, Skinner and Leonard JJ.
^[3] [1986] SBHC 15 SILR (3 September 1986) Ward CJ
^[4] [2013] SBCA 6; Criminal Appeal Case 27, 28, 35 of 2012 (26 April 2013).