HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Natei 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	2 May 2022	
		
Parties: 	Regina v Walter Natei	
		
Date of hearing: 	6 April 2022	
		
Court file number(s): 	125 of 2017	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Bird; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The defendant is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on count1.
2. The defendant is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on count 2.
3. I direct that the sentences are to be served concurrently.
4. I further direct that the time spent in custody be deducted from total sentence.
5. Right of appeal	
		
Representation: 	Mrs. Margret Suifa’asia for the Crown 
Mr. Henry Kausimae for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 [cap 26] S 136F, S 138 (1) (a) & (b)	
		
Cases cited:	Mulele v DPP and Poini v DPP [1985-1986] SILR 145, 	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 125 of 2017

REGINA 

V

WALTER NATEI 

Date of Hearing: 6 April 2022
Date of Decision: 2 May 2022

Mrs. Margret Suifa’asia for the Crown 
Mr. Henry Kausimae for the Defendant 
SENTENCE 
Bird PJ:
1. 	On the 25th March 2022, you were convicted after trial of the offence of attempt rape contrary to section 136F (3) of the Penal Code (cap 26) as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and one count of indecent act contrary to section 138 (1) (a) & (b) of the Act. You now appear before me for sentence.
2. 	I must tell you that the maximum penalty for the offence of attempt rape is one of 15 years imprisonment. For the offence of indecent act, is an imprisonment term of 5 years. I am also minded to note that the maximum penalty is normally reserved for the most serious of cases. The sentences that I will impose upon you will depend on the peculiar circumstances of your case. On behalf of the crown, Mrs Suifa’asia submitted that you misrepresented both victims in this case. You told the victims that the shark devil was in them and that you needed to cure them from it. Believing what you told them, they agreed to be cured by you. They both did not agree as to how you conducted the curing and they both felt very offended.
3. 	In our Solomon Islands culture, it is not right for a man to touch a woman’s body. In your case, you sucked on Mrs Cheffers right thigh, above her knees and on her right chest above her breast. The parts that you sucked are sensitive parts of a woman’s body and no man is allowed to suck and touch them without the woman’s consent.
4. 	You also lied to Ms Chabiri by telling her that you must have sexual intercourse with her in order to cure her from the devil. It was fortunate that she struggled with you and was successful in restraining you.
5. 	I have heard from your lawyer that you are now 55 years old. You have 6 children. You are separated from your wife and you are looking after two of your younger children. You have no formal education but helped to sustain your family by driving buses and taxis and doing casual jobs if and when available. You have no previous conviction on sexual related cases and that you can be treated as a first offender in that regard. However, having stated those personal circumstances, I am also minded to note the view of the court in the case of Mulele v DPP and Poini v DPP [1985-1986] SILR 145 in which the court was of the view that in sexual offences cases, matters personal to the offender are likely to have less impact on sentence than in other serious crime.
6. 	I am also urged to note that you have co-operated with the police. I have also noted that you have complied with all your bail conditions until finalisation of your case. I have noted that the offences were committed in July 2016, more than 5 years ago. You were committed to this court on the 16th February 2017. The original information was filed on the 1st November 2017, 9 months after committal. Amended information was filed on the 9th November 2021 which led to the trial of the matter. After having said that, it is not your fault that the case was delayed for several years. That goes in your favour. I have noted that the offences committed are on two separate victims, however, they were a result of a single transaction. I am therefore of the view that any sentences imposed are to be served concurrently.
7. 	Having considered all of the relevant circumstances in your case and for the offence of attempt rape, I put your starting point at 4 years imprisonment. For the aggravating feature discussed, I increase the sentence by 1 year. For the mitigating feature and especially for the delay in the finalisation of your case, I reduce that sentence by 2 years. Total sentence to serve is one of one of 3 years imprisonment. For the offence of indecent act, I put the starting point at 2 years imprisonment. For the aggravating features, I would increase the sentence by 1 year. For the delay in the prosecution of the case, I reduce the sentence by 2 years. Total sentence to serve is one of 12 months imprisonment.
Orders of the court
1.	The defendant is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on count1.
2.	The defendant is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on count 2.
3.	I direct that the sentences are to be served concurrently.
4.	I further direct that the time spent in custody be deducted from total sentence.
5.	Right of appeal
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge