R v Beo [2021] SBHC 29; HCSI-CRC 98 of 2019 (25 February 2021)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Case name:	R v Beo

Citation:

Date of decision:	25 February 2021

Parties:	Regina v Noah Beo

Date of hearing:

Court file number(s):	98 of 2019

Jurisdiction:	Criminal

Place of delivery:

Judge(s):	Maina; PJ

On appeal from:

Order:	1. Ct 1 – 2 years imprisonment, 1. Ct 2 - 2 years imprisonment, 1. Ct 2 sentence is suspended on good behaviour for 2 years, 1. The suspended sentences to commence after the imprisonment of Ct 1, 1. The time in custody to deducted from the sentence, 1. No further orders

Representation:	Meioko A and Kelesi for the prosecution Gray G Public Solicitor and Max H for Defence

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:	Penal Code Section 142 (1) [cap 26], 142 (1) and (2)

Cases cited:	Mulele v Director of Public Prosecution and Poini v Director of Prosecution [1985-186] SILR 145

Meioko A and Kelesi for the Prosecution
Gray G Public Solicitor and Max H for the Defence

Defendant Noah Beo had pleaded guilty and convicted on one count of defilement of a girl under 13 years of age contrary to section 142 (1) of the Penal Code (Cap 26) and other count of defilement of a girl under 13 years of age contrary to section 143 (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Cap 26) .

The complainant Sonrika Niirae was born on 13 July 2001 and the defendant Noah Beo was born on 10^th November 1993.

On the 24^th February 2013 the defendant asked the complainant to be his girlfriend and the complainant had accepted the request.

On an unknown date in February 2013, the Defendant then asked the Complainant to go with him down to the seaside. They went down to the seaside and after talking to each other for few minutes, the Defendant asked the Complainant to have sexual intercourse with her. The Complainant agreed and she then removed her clothes and laid on the ground. The Defendant removed his clothes and they had sexual intercourse at the seaside.

On another occasion between February 2013 and March 2015, the Defendant and complainant had sexual intercourse. When they had sexual intercourse at that time, the defendant did not wear the condoms. And in March 2015, the Complainant stopped having her menstrual cycle and soon after realized she was pregnant.

The Complainant told her grandparents about the sexual intercourse with defendant and they went and made a complaint to the Police.

This accused has been charged under 142 (1) and section 142 (1) and (2) of the Penal Code (Cap 26), pleaded guilty and convicted upon own pleas on the charges. But when the counsel made their sentencing submissions, they based their submission on the penalties under the Penal Code (Cap 26) as Amendment by the Penal Code (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.

This may be an error or confusion on the parts of the counsels as notably, the statements, particulars of the offences and facts stated that the offences were committed in the year 2013/2015.

It is so, the penalties must be under the old Act, defilement under section 142 (1), a felony liable to imprisonment for life and under section 142 (2) of Penal Code (Cap 26), a misdemeanour liable to imprisonment for five years respectively.

The Mulele v Director of Prosecution and Poini v Director of Prosecution 1985 – 1986 SILR 145 has drawn the features with this type of offences in the consideration of the sentences. They are age disparity, abuse of trust, subsequent pregnancy and character of the girl.

With the two counts of defilement against the accused there were arose from what defence has described as boy/girl relationship. The Defence counsel submitted and such should be taken into account in the sentence.

It not or there is nothing wrong to have a friend with other person however it should go to that extent of the sexual intercourse of certain age prohibited by the law. It is unlawful to have sexual intercourse with any girl under the age of thirteen years and if you are found guilty, shall be liable to imprisonment for life. If attempts to have unlawful sexual intercourse with any girl being of or above the age of thirteen years and girl under the age of fifteen years, shall be liable to 5 years imprisonment.

It is just clear that when the child is under 15 years of age it is not yet right or for the defendant to penetrate his penis in her vagina.

The question of boy/girl relation should not be an issue with the court to consider in the sentence. However, it may be so when considering a character of the girl.

Each case defends on its own circumstances and for this case the starting point of the sentence on the charge is 4 years imprisonment.

There is a delay of this case and it is now about 9 years. The records in the case file show these circumstances i.e. charges and fact the offences occurred in the year 2013/2015.

Accused was charged on 17^th December 2017, committal to High court on 20^th March 2018. The information was filed in the High Court on 18^th July 2019. Summon was not served on him on one sitting. It appears from the record that his first appearance to the court was on 28^th August 2020 but his was not dealt with. Not at the last circuit but on this circuit he appeared and pleaded guilty on the two charges.

With the case I noted and take into account the submission on sentence and the cases referred by all the counsels.

Both the accused and complainant were young persons at the ages of 20 and 12 years and I would not take the age differences as an aggravating feature, noted the act or behaviour of the complainant towards the defendant. She behaved in the admired, wanted or well-liked for the accused.

I also take into account the accused is continuously assisting the child born from the accused and complainant’s relationship. The defendant Noah Boe deserves a sentence of total 4 years imprisonment on the two charges and sentenced accordingly, to be served as by the following orders.

High Court of Solomon Islands

R v Beo [2021] SBHC 29; HCSI-CRC 98 of 2019 (25 February 2021)