R v Ringo [2021] SBHC 180; HCSI-CRC 569 of 2019 (6 July 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Ringo
Citation:
Date of decision:	6 July 2021
Parties:	Regina v Thomas Sa’a Ringo
Date of hearing:	2 July 2021
Court file number(s):	569 of 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Palmer; CJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Enter conviction for the offence of sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years of age, to wit 11 years and impose sentence of 10 years each on counts 1 and 2. 2. The sentence of imprisonment on count 2 is to be served concurrently, leaving a total sentence of 10 years to be served. 3. The period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence.
Representation:	Mrs D Oligari for the Crown Mr S R Manebosa for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act [cap 26], S 142 (2) and S 139 (1), S 139 (1) (b), S 139 (1) (a)
Cases cited:	Pana v Regina [2013] SBCA 19, Regina v Hoka [2012] SBHC 152, R v Billam [1963] 8 Cr, R. v. Ligiau and Dori [1986] SBHC 15,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 569 of 2019

REGINA

V

THOMAS SA’A RINGO

Date of Hearing: 2 July 2021
Date of Sentence: 6 July 2021

Mrs D Oligari for the Crown
Mr S R Manebosa for the Defendant

Palmer CJ.

1. The defendant is charged with two counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 15 years contrary to section 139(1) of the Penal Code as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016, and has entered guilty pleas on both counts when arraigned on 12^th March 2021.
2. There are two parts to this subsection in relation to the maximum sentence to be imposed. Under paragraph (a), the maximum sentence to be imposed is life imprisonment where the child is below the age of 13 years or, the offender is in a position of trust to the child. Under paragraph (b), the sentence is 15 years where the child is between the age of 13 and 15 years.
3. It is not in dispute that the child victim in this case is below the age of 13 years to wit, 11 years and so the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
4. The maximum penalty of life imprisonment reflects the seriousness and concern with which Parliament holds in respect of this type of offences and the need to protect young girls from the predatory activities of some men. This applies in particular to young children of very tender age. In Regina v. Hoka^[1], Pallaras J. addressed this issue in his sentencing remarks at paragraphs 14 and 15 and states at paragraph 16 as follows:
   • This Court has a small but vital role to play in this process. It is to deliver fair and just penalties befitting the crime in a manner that will serve the long accepted need to impose sentences in appropriate circumstances that will act as both general and specific deterrents. The community has a right to expect that of its Courts and the Courts must respond appropriately.”
5. The Courts in the country are obliged to consider and impose appropriate sentences in each case that reflect this widespread public concern in the community.
6. In Pana v. Regina^[2], the Court of Appeal had expressed its concerns about the “alarming level of sexual violence”^[3] in Solomon Islands and the need to consider increases in penalties. At paragraph 13, the Court noted the close parallel between offences of rape and defilement with the maximum penalty in both being the same, that of life imprisonment. It said:
   • “However, the circumstances in cases of defilement can be so different from one offence to another in respect, for example, of the ages of the victims, the likelihood that the accused is in a position of trust and the nature of that trust and the long-term detrimental effects on the victims that the courts must continue to assess the appropriate sentence on the nature and individual circumstances of the case before it."
7. In other words each case must be considered on its own merits. The Court also endorsed the Billam Guidelines^[4] in which the three starting points of five, eight and fifteen years for rape were set, and noted that where the victim is a child below the age of consent, the starting point should be eight years. It stated that this should be the same for offences of defilement. At paragraph 16 of Pana, it stated:
   • “We suggest that, in all but the most exceptional case, the sole fact that the child is below the age of consent should in itself bring the starting point to eight years whether conviction is for rape or defilement. The actual age of the victim should still be taken into account as a possible aggravating factor over and above that.”
8. I am satisfied the starting point in this case without any aggravating or mitigating features and a guilty plea entered, should be eight years. Where aggravating features exist, as in this case, there should be a corresponding increase in the sentence of imprisonment to be imposed.
9. I thank counsel for providing written submissions and case authorities for my consideration. I note the presence of the following additional aggravating features in this case, which are not disputed. First, the age of the victim at 11 years, which places her at a very tender and vulnerable age at the time of commission of the offence. Her tender young age is a serious aggravating feature^[5], her childhood innocence being deprived. This increases the starting point by two years to 10 years.
10. The second aggravating feature is the disparity in age. The defendant is an elderly man at the age of some 64 years old at the time of commission of the offence. The age difference between them is 54 years. His actions were both disgraceful and selfish. I add another 2 years to this, bringing the sentence to 12 years.
11. The third aggravating feature is the position he would have held in his community setting as an elderly and respected member in the community, whether he was related to her or not. Such elderly persons in the community are often looked upon with respect and honour. This would correspondingly have placed him in a position of trust and responsibility over the safety and wellbeing of a very young and vulnerable person as the victim. As an elderly member in the community he had failed to demonstrate responsibility and trust towards the victim; instead he took advantage of her vulnerability and abused his position. No doubt his actions would have corrupted her innocence and dignity as a child and would have caused needless distress and trauma. Whatever emotional, psychological and physical harm may have been caused, will take a long time to heal.
12. The fourth aggravating feature is the repetition in the offending. This was not done once but twice and so demonstrates the element of intentional and deliberate behaviour. It was not a one off or, spur of the moment incident, committed at a momentary loss of self-control. As an elderly and mature old man he should have known better. I am satisfied this attracts another one year increase to 13 years.
13. On the other hand I note the mitigating factors of a guilty plea and give due credit for that, noting that this has saved court time and expense and the complainant from the distress of having to relive the trauma from the witness box. This is of particular significance in the light of the tender age of the victim in which she would have to be subjected to the rigours of a fully blown trial if the matter had been contested. By his guilty plea the Defendant has demonstrated remorse and faced up to the consequences of his action. I accordingly reduce the sentence by 2 years to 11 years.
14. I note he has no previous convictions and that this is his first time to appear in court.
15. I note also there was no injury, threats or harm caused to the victim, other than the offensive acts committed on her and the shame, physical, psychological and emotional distress caused.
16. I also take into account the period spent in custody of having to wait for some two years for his case to be concluded.
17. The courts have duty however to protect the weak and vulnerable members of our society, a fortiori, children of tender age, by ensuring that an immediate custodial sentence is imposed in this type of offending, and that a clear message is sent out to the community that those who commit this type of offence must expect a lengthy custodial sentence. Each case however has to be determined on its own merits and an appropriate sentence imposed that balances the elements of retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation.
18. Taking all his mitigating factors into account, I deduct a further 1 year from the sentence, leaving a total of 10 years to be served. I am satisfied taking into account the totality principle, count 2 should be made to run concurrent to count 1.I am satisfied the period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence imposed.
19. He has a right of appeal if aggrieved by this sentence.

Orders of the Court:

1. Enter conviction for the offence of sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years of age, to wit 11 years and impose sentence of 10 years each on counts 1 and 2.
2. The sentence of imprisonment on count 2 is to be served concurrently, leaving a total sentence of 10 years to be served.
3. The period spent in custody is to be deducted from the sentence.

The Court.

---

^[1] CRC 159 of 2011, 10 December 2012 (Pallaras J.).
^[2] [2013] SBCA 19; SICOA-CRAC 13 of 2013 (8 November 2013)
^[3] 2^nd Interim Report – Sexual Offences, of the Solomon Islands Law Reform Commission Review of the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, published in June 2013 at page 39, paragraph 2.3.
^[4] R. v. Billam [1963] 8 CR. App. R. (S) 48
^[5] R. v. Ligiau and Dori [1986] SBHC 15