R v Veo [2021] SBHC 148; HCSI-CRC 402 of 2020 (19 November 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Veo
Citation:
Date of decision:	19 November 2021
Parties:	Regina v Boaz Veo
Date of hearing:	17 November 2021
Court file number(s):	402 of 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The defendant Mr. Boaz Veo is hereby convicted of one count of having sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years contrary to section 139 (1) (b) of the Penal Code (cap 26) as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016. 2. The defendant is hereby sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. 3. I direct that the time spent in pre-trial custody be deducted from the total sentence. 4. The defendant is to be released at the rising of the court.
Representation:	Mr Andrew Meioko for the Crown Mr Benham Ifuto’o for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 s 139 (1) (b)[cap 26], Penal Code s 24 (2) [cap 26],
Cases cited:	Mulele v DPP and Poini v DPP [1986] SBCA 6, Pitamama v Regina [2005] SBHC 34, Pana v Regina SICOF-CRAC No. 13 of 2013, R v Ligiau and Dori [1985-1986] SILR 214,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 402 of 2020

REGINA

V

BOAZ VEO

Date of Hearing: 17 November 2021
Date of Decision: 19 November 2021

Mr Andrew Meioko for the Crown
Mr Benham Ifuto’o for the Defendant

SENTENCE

Bird PJ:

1. This defendant had initially pleaded not guilty to the charges laid against him in the information filed on the 12^th February 2021. A nolle prosequi was filed by the DPP in respect of that information and an amended information was filed on the 30^th September 2021 whereby the defendant Mr. Boaz Veo, was charged with the offence of having sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years contrary to section 139 (1) (b) of the Penal Code (cap 26) as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016. Upon being arraigned on the amended information, the defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge. He was thereby convicted accordingly.
2. The offence for which you are charged is serious and carries a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment. Notwithstanding the maximum sentence codified under our laws, the maximum penalty is normally reserved for the most serious of cases. The courts by virtue of section 24 (2) of the Penal Code (cap 26), has the discretion to impose a shorter sentence than the maximum sentence.
3. The facts of your case are the following:

The victim is Emily Grace. She was born on the 7^th April 2005 at Gizo Hospital. She was 14 years and 10 months at the time of offending. She was then residing with her grandparents at Koriovuku Village.

You are from Koriovuku Village. You were 68 years old at the material time. You are a first cousin brother to the victim’s grandmother.

On the 2^nd March 2020 at about 1.00pm, the victim and her friend walked to where you were selling ring cakes. They wanted ring cake. The victim’s friend told you they only had fifty cents and you told them the ring cake was $1.00 each. You gave them one ring cake and they shared it between themselves.

The victim then got into a conversation with you and asked you if you have dry coconuts. You told her you only had two coconuts left and you were going to use them that evening for your ring cake mix. The victim told you she would bring dry coconuts for you the next day for sale. You told her you will buy them for five dollars.

You walked inside your house to get the money for the victim. She followed you inside your house and walked straight to your bed. While you were trying to get the money out from a container, she went and sat on your bed. She then pulled out her underpants and laid down on your bed. She was wearing a skirt. She then asked you “wea na slen?

When you turned around to give her the money, you saw her laying down on your bed with her legs widened. You then moved towards her and licked her vagina with your tongue. You were arrested on the 24^th March 2020.

4. In order for me to impose an appropriate sentence in your case, I will have to discuss the aggravating features and mitigating features. As a guidance to the sentencing of sexual related cases, the Court of Appeal in the case of Mulele v DPP and Poini v DPP [1986] SBCA 6, had set out four factors that the courts must take into account in sentencing. Those factors included age disparity, abuse of position of trust, subsequent pregnancy and the character of the girl herself.
5. In your case, I have noted that there is presence of a huge age disparity and there is also abuse of position of trust. I have noted that at the time of offending, you were 68 years old and the victim was 14 years and 10 months old. The age disparity between you was a period of 53 years and 2 months. That is an extremely huge age gap between you.
6. From the agreed facts, I have noted that you are related to the victim. You are a first cousin to the victim’s grandmother. That would have made you the victim’s grand uncle. In our matrilineal societies, you are supposed to be a very important figure within your family circle. You are placed with huge responsibilities to look after and take care of the wellbeing and interests of your sisters’ children and grandchildren. Your biological sisters and cousin sisters regard you as the guardian and caretaker of their children and grandchildren’s total wellbeing in custom. You have breached the trust placed upon you.
7. On your behalf, it was submitted by Mr. Ifuto’o of counsel that you have pleaded guilty to the offence. I give you credit for your early guilty plea. I have noted that your guilty plea has shown remorse on your part. It has also save the court’s time and resources in having to conduct a trial into your case. It also saves the victim much stress and trauma in having to come to court to give evidence in a contested trial. In the case of Pitamama v Regina [2005] SBHC 34, Chief Justice Palmer was of the view that defendants who pleaded guilty may be granted some reduction. That reduction of sentence may be between one quarter to one third. In the case of Pana v Regina SICOF-CRAC No. 13 of 2013, the Court of Appeal said “the most important mitigating effect of a plea of guilty in a sexual and in any case involving a young child is that it saves the complainant from the distress of having to relieve trauma from the witness box”. In summary therefore is that a guilty plea is a strong mitigating factor.
8. I have heard that you have no previous conviction and that you are a person of previous good character. I commend you for living a life free from crime until this offending. I urge you to learn from this mistake and do not reoffend in future. I have also heard that you have been remanded in custody from the 26^th March 2020 and was released on bail on the 30^th July 2020. You have therefore been remanded in pre-trial custody for a period of 4 months and 4 days.
9. Your personal circumstances are that you would be now 69 years old. You were 68 at the time of offending. You are married with five children, all of whom are now adults. I am nonetheless reminded of the comments of Ward Chief Justice in the case of R v Ligiau and Dori [1985-1986] SILR 214, in which he stated inter alia that in sexual related cases, matters personal to the accused are likely to have less impact on the sentence than with other serious offences.
10. Also on your behalf, I will take into account the conduct of the victim on the date of offending. From the agreed facts, it is obvious that the victim herself had seduced you into the commission of the offence. On the date of the offence, you were minding your own business. I have noted that the victim had striped herself with her legs open for you. You then fell and committed the offence. I have also noted on your behalf that there was no penial penetration on the victim. You merely used your tongue to lick the victim’s vagina. I must therefore tell you that it is against the law for you to lick a child’s vagina with your tongue even if that child consents to it. These laws are codified in that way because children are very vulnerable and the law must protect them from sexual molestation by males and it is also a means of protection on themselves.
11. I have also noted from your medical history that you are an asthmatic patient. Most of your visits to clinics and hospital are connected to your known health condition. I have also noted that you are continuously taking medication for your condition.
12. In the case of Ligiau and Dori cited above, the Court had stated that a starting point for contested rape cases committed by an adult without any aggravating and mitigating features is one of five years imprisonment. In the various sentencing ranges on cases cited by Counsel Mr. Meioko, the imprisonment terms imposed by this court were from suspended sentences to 4 years imprisonment, depending on the peculiar circumstances in each case.
13. In your case, you have licked the vagina of a 14 years old child. She seduced you into the commission of the offence. Nonetheless, even with her consent, you have committed a serious offence punishable under our laws. I therefore put your starting point at 3 years imprisonment. For your guilty plea, I reduce that sentence by 12 months. For the conduct of the victim, I suspend a further 12 months of your sentence. I hereby impose a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. I direct that the time spent in pre-trial custody be deducted from the total sentence. Since you have been in pre-trial custody for slightly more than 4 months and for your age and your health condition, I direct that you be released at the rising of the court.

Orders of the Court

1. The defendant Mr. Boaz Veo is hereby convicted of one count of having sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years contrary to section 139 (1) (b) of the Penal Code (cap 26) as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.
2. The defendant is hereby sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
3. I direct that the time spent in pre-trial custody be deducted from the total sentence.
4. The defendant is to be released at the rising of the court.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge