PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Solomon Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Solomon Islands >> 2021 >> [2021] SBHC 134

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

R v Sade [2021] SBHC 134; HCSI-CRC 519 of 2021 (5 November 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS


Case name:
R v Sade


Citation:



Date of decision:
5 November 2021


Parties:
Regina v Frank Korai Sade


Date of hearing:
3 November 2021


Court file number(s):
519 of 2021


Jurisdiction:
Criminal


Place of delivery:



Judge(s):
Lawry; PJ


On appeal from:



Order:
1. The Defendant is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.
2. Any time the Defendant has spent on remand on this matter is to be taken into account in calculating the Defendant’s release date.
3. The name of the victim is suppressed and may not be published.


Representation:
Ms A Naqu for the Crown
Mr R D Pulekera for the Defendant


Catchwords:



Words and phrases:



Legislation cited:
Penal Code S(Amendment) (Sexual Offenses) Act 2016 S 139 (1) (a), S 139 (1) (b)


Cases cited:
R v Ligiau and Dori [1986] SBHC 15, Regina v Liva [2017] SBCA 20, R v Bonuga [2014] SBCA 22, Soni v Reginam [2013] SBCA 6, R v Fiuga [2019] SBHC 75, Regina v Baddley Balekwai [2020] SBHC 84, R v Kaneta [2019] SBHC 52, R v Topo [2018] SBHC 99, R v Noforangakeri [2021] SBHC 57, R v Bui [2021] SBHC 12, R v Mindu [2021] SBHC 1, Qoloni v Regina[2005] SBHC 73, Gerea v Regina [2005] SBHC 34, Talifai v Regina [2011] SBHC 16;Pana v Reginam [2013] SBCA 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION


Criminal Case No. 519 of 2021


REGINA


V


FRANK KORAI SADE


Date of Hearing: 3 November 2021
Date of Decision: 5 November 2021


Ms A Naqu for the Crown
Mr R D Pulekera for the Defendant


Lawry; PJ

SENTENCE

Introduction

  1. Frank Korai you have pleaded guilty to one count of having sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 15 contrary to section 139(1)(a) of the Penal Code as amended by section 5 of the Penal Code (Amendment)(Sexual Offences) Act 2016. As the complainant was aged only 12, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. You now appear for sentence.

Facts

  1. You are aged 20 years. One day in April 2021 you were at Labourline area, Yandina Station in Central Province. You saw the complainant riding her bicycle with 3 of her friends. She lives in a house close to yours. You called her and called her. She came over to you. You took her inside your house and into your bedroom. You had sexual intercourse with her. It caused her pain. When her parents found out they reported the matter to the Police.

Aggravating features

  1. The Crown has identified several aggravating features as follows:
    1. The age of the complainant. She was only 12.
    2. The age disparity between you and the complainant.

Mitigating features

  1. Your counsel submits the following as mitigating features:
    1. You have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
    2. You have no previous convictions and are of good character.
    1. You are described as remorseful.
    1. Through your family you have reconciled with the family of the complainant and in a customary ceremony held at the Yandina Police Station, your family gave compensation of $5,000.00 cash and 3 tafulia’e shell money as an acknowledgement for what you did.
    2. You are said to have good prospects for rehabilitation. Your counsel has advised that you are a student at SINU enrolled for a Diploma in Teaching.

Sentencing principles

  1. The Crown has correctly submitted that the Court considers the need for deterrence for both you and for others in the community who may also fail to respect women and girls in particular for their own sexual gratification. You knew the complainant to be a young neighbor yet you, as an adult, sexually abused her. You case sis quite different from one referred to by counsel where a complainant had persistently pursued a young man for her own sexual gratification.
  2. The prosecution also asks the Court to address the need for punishment to show the community’s abhorrence of your offending. The prosecution and your counsel also asks the Court to consider your prospects for rehabilitation. It is a concern that someone who wishes to continue training to be a teacher would prey on a 12 year old child. It is difficult to see you as an appropriate person for such a career in light of your offending.

Starting point

  1. The Court of Appeal has confirmed R v Ligiau and Dori [1986] SBHC 15 as the appropriate tariff case. In Ligiau and Dori the Court said:
  2. The prosecution has referred the Court to the Court of Appeal decision Regina v Liva [2017] SBCA 20 where at paragraph [25] the Court approved what they had said in said in R v Bonuga [2014] SBCA 22:
  3. The Court of Appeal in Soni v Reginam [2013] SBCA 6 approved the starting points set out in Ligiau and Dori. In Pana v Reginam [2013] SBCA 19 the Court of Appeal was dealing with the rape of a young girl. They said at paragraph [17]:
  4. The prosecution referred the Court to several decisions that have followed Pana. The prosecution referred to R v Fiuga [2019] SBHC 75. The offender was also charged under section 139 (1) (a) of the Penal Code. The complainant was aged 8 and the offender was aged 22. There were more serious matters of aggravation but there was a guilty plea, compensation and a lack of other offending. The Court after balancing the aggravating and mitigating features ended up with a sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment. An order was made suspending 2 years of that sentence for the purposes of rehabilitation.
  5. In Regina v Baddley Balekwai [2020] SBHC 84 the offender was also charged under the same section. He was a mature man of 53 and the victim was aged 8. A final sentence of 8 years was imposed following a guilty plea and other matters in mitigation.
  6. In R v Kaneta [2019] SBHC 52 the offender pleaded guilty to a charge under section 139(1) (a) and also to committing an indecent act. The victim was only 7 and the offender was drunk. He had not previously offended. He was sentenced to 6 years for the charge under section 139 (1) (a).
  7. In R v Topo [2018] SBHC 99, a 22 year old offender pleaded guilty to a charge under the same section. The victim was aged 11. There was a breach of trust and no previous offending. The sentence was 6 years’ imprisonment. The prosecution referred to two other cases but they do not add anything to the cases set out above. I record that each of the cases referred to by the prosecution had elements of aggravation more serious than in your case.
  8. Your counsel has referred the court to R v Noforangakeri [2021] SBHC 57 however, that involved a less serious charge. The offender was aged 21 and the victim 13. There was a breach of trust and a guilty plea. The Court sentenced the offender to 3 years’ imprisonment. Other orders were also made.
  9. Similarly, in R v Bui [2021] SBHC 12 the offender was charged under a less serious section. He was aged 25 and the victim aged 13. 3 years’ imprisonment was imposed on each of two charges.
  10. Finally, your counsel referred to R v Mindu [2021] SBHC 1. Mindu involved very different circumstances. This was the case where the complainant continued to pursue the offender in spite of being directed to go elsewhere. She refused to go to her brother and was the person who instigated the sexual activity.
  11. Discussion
  12. In Pana the Court of Appeal gave clear guidance on the starting point. The Court also gave guidance on the appropriate reductions to be made for early guilty pleas. You face sentence for your offending against section 139(1) (a). Your case must be treated quite differently from cases under section 139(1)(b) where an offender engages in sexual intercourse with a young girl of a similar age who although under the age of consent is a very willing party to the sexual activity.
  13. There are no exceptional circumstances which would require me to consider a lower starting point than as set out in Pana. I take a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment. The complainant was still three years under the age of consent. I therefore add 6 months to reflect her young age.

Guilty plea

  1. The Court of Appeal in Soni, reviewed the authorities regarding discounts available to reflect the significance of a guilty. At paragraph [16] the Court said:

Order of the Court

  1. The Defendant is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.
  2. Any time the Defendant has spent on remand on this matter is to be taken into account in calculating the Defendant’s release date.
  3. The name of the victim is suppressed and may not be published.

By the Court
Justice Howard Lawry
Puisne Judge


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2021/134.html