HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Ngelea	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	8 July 2022	
		
Parties: 	Regina v Junior Luke Ngelea 	
		
Date of hearing: 	29 June 2022	
		
Court file number(s): 	485 of 2020	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Bird; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The defendant Mr. Junior Luke Ngelea is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
2. I direct that the time spent in pre-trial custody be deducted from the total sentence.
3. Right of appeal	
		
Representation: 	Ms Patricia Tabepuda & Ms Monica Rehomora for the Crown 
Mr Rodney Sholton Manebosa for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 [cap 26] S 136F (1) (a) & (b)
Penal Code [cap 26] S 24 (2)	
		
Cases cited:	Soni v Regina [2013] SBCA 6,	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 485 of 2020

REGINA 

V

JUNIOR LUKE NGELEA

Date of Hearing: 29 June 2022
Date of Decision: 8 July 2022

Ms Patricia Tabepuda and Ms Monica Rehomora for the Crown 
Mr Rodney Sholton Manebosa for the Defendant 
SENTENCE 
Bird PJ:
1. 	This defendant was convicted by the court after a trial on the 23rd May 2022 for the offence of rape contrary to section 136F (1) (a) & (b) of the Penal Code (cap 26) as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016. He now appears before for sentence.
2. 	The offence of rape for which you are charged is very serious and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The courts are however empowered under section 24 (2) of the Penal Code (cap 26) to impose a shorter sentence than the one prescribed according to the peculiar circumstances of each case and the maximum sentence is normally reserved for the most serious of cases.
3. 	In order to assist me in the imposition of an appropriate sentence in your case, I must weigh the aggravating features to the mitigating features as submitted by both the prosecution and the defence. For the prosecution, it was submitted that there are several aggravating features that this court must take into account. In the case of Mulele v DPP [1985-1986] SILR 145, the court had set out four factors that must be considered in the sentencing of sexual offenders. They included age disparity, abuse of position of trust, subsequent pregnancy and character of the girl herself. I have viewed your case and I can see that none of those factors are seen in your offending. I am also assisted in what the Court of Appeal had stated in the case of Soni v Regina [2013] SBCA 6, Criminal Appeal Case No. 27, 28 & 36 of 2012.In that case, the Court of Appeal had referred to and adopted the views of Lord Lane in the case of R v Billam. The court had identified 8 factors that would qualify as aggravating in each case. They included violence is used, a weapon is used, the rape is repeated, the rape has been carefully planned, the defendant had previous conviction on sex charges and the use of violence, the victim is subjected to further sexual indignities of perversion, the victim is either very old or very young and the physical and mental affect upon the victim.
4. 	Having stated the above principles, I am told by the prosecution that the seriousness of the offence committed is an aggravating feature against you. The seriousness of the offending is manifested in the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is also an aggravating feature that you committed the offending inside the victim’s bedroom. The victim was drunk and was asleep when you committed rape on her. The court sees your action as a sign of total disregard to the victim’s dignity and self-respect. It is further noted that what you did to the victim had caused her emotional trauma. She was hysterical when she ran out from the bedroom.
5. 	On your behalf it was submitted by counsel that you are single and about 25 years old. You were 23 years old at the material time. You are a member of the Anglican Church and have taken up leadership role in the youth ministry. You were a student at Don Bosco Technical Institute before the offending and was unable to complete your studies because of this case. You are a first offender and had no previous conviction. It is further submitted that no weapon was used in the commission of the offence and no force was exerted. It is further submitted that there was no pre-meditation of the offending. After hearing evidence in your trial, it is obvious that there was some planning in the commission of the offending. I have noted that you have spent some time in pre-trial custody. My calculation is that you have now spent a total of 1 year and 26 days in pre-trial custody. That time in custody will be taken into account in your sentence. It is also noted that it had taken more than 2 years to complete your case.
6. 	In the case of Ligiau & Dori [1985-1986] SILR 142, the court had fixed a starting point of 5 years in a contested rape case, committed by an adult without any aggravating feature. In your case, there are a number of aggravating features noted. You were 23 years old at the time of offence which puts you as a youthful offender. You have an opportunity to relook at your behaviour and to change your attitude to becoming a good citizen of this country. You were convicted by the court after a trial and I would put your starting point at 4 years imprisonment. For the aggravating features, I increase your sentence by 1 year. For the mitigating features and especially your youthfulness together with your ambition to continue with your education, I will reduce that sentence by 2 years. Total imprisonment term to serve is one of 3 years
Orders of the court
1.	The defendant Mr. Junior Luke Ngelea is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
2.	I direct that the time spent in pre-trial custody be deducted from the total sentence.
3.	Right of appeal
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge