Crown v Vote [2022] SBHC 96; HCSI-CRC 72 of 2018 (11 November 2022)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Crown v Vote
Citation:
Date of decision:	11 November 2022
Parties:	Crown v Cecil Vote
Date of hearing:
Court file number(s):	72 of 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Maina; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. Defendant Cecil Vote is sentence to imprisonment for 9 years, 2. The time spent in custody for this case to be deducted from the sentence, 3. Right to appeal, 4. No further orders.
Representation:	Tabepuda P & Mono A for the Crown Manebosa SR for the Defence
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016, S 139 (1) (a)
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 72 of 2018

CROWN

V

CECIL VOTE

Date of Ruling: 11 November 2022

Tabepuda P & Mono A for the Crown
Manebosa SR for the Crown

SENTENCE

Maina, PJ:

1. The Defendant Cecil Vote was found guilty on a trail hearing and convicted on the charge of sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years contrary to section 139 (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offence) Act 2016.
2. Defendant Cecil Vote was 59 years old and the complainant was 7 years old at the time of the offence.

Brief Facts

3. On the 1^st March 2017 at Haeove Conservation Beach, Isabel Province the Defendant held the complainant and pushed penis in her mouth and pushed his finger in her vagina.

Maximum Penalty

4. Maximum Penalty for this offence under section 139 (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offence) Act 2016 is life imprisonment.

Mitigation

5. For the mitigation, Defence Counsel submits that the Defendant is now 63 years old and the first offender. He seeks the court to take into account in the sentence the time spent in the custody for this case. Counsel said the Defendant realised his role as grand of the Victim.
6. Crown Counsels noted the mitigation of the Defendant and being the first offender, but argued that mitigation must not overweight the seriousness of the offence.

Aggravating Features

7. The Crown submits the serious consideration of the court on the disparity of ages of 59 years for the Defendant and 7 years for the Victim. The Defendant is in a position of trust to look after the Victim of being a granduncle. The fact the girl is very young with this sexual acts entailed trauma on her.

Starting Point

8. It appears from the cases of this type that came before this Court that the starting point of sentence in the range of 8 years and it is appropriate for this Defendant.
9. With the sentences of the sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years, the court have expressed concerns on the arising number of such cases and in particular the case of sexual intercourse regularly coming to the court. I would say it is also common with girl victims of under 15 years and it is common all over this country.
10. You, Defendant are in the position of trust as a grandfather but decided to abuse that trust had sexual intercourse with your granddaughter. It is worse as the age disparity is 52 years as you were 63 years and the Victim was 7 years old at the time of the offence.
11. The fact that you pushed your penis in her mouth and pushed your finger in her vagina would be harmful to your granddaughter. Her mouth is to each food and live a good health life but you have decided to push your timeworn penis in this young girl’s mouth, else you may have sickness in your penis.
12. This above comment may sound funny or jokey but the concern here is that the Defendant’s act with the way of sexual intercourse with her granddaughter is serious and ridiculous. On that, the Court must not take it lightly when dealing with the sentencing with the offender of this nature. I noted that each case’s sentence defends on its own circumstances.
13. As a granduncle or grandfather as commonly referred to in our places, you are required by your people to take all the responsibilities, and ensure the care of the child or whenever you were there. However, you decided to abuse that trust.
14. Upon the consideration and taking into account the facts, mitigation and the aggravating features in this case, you deserve a sentence that will teach you and others. An abuse of trust in the sexual act is against not only the law but also a bad behaviour or attitude in the communities and also a shameful thing on you and your people.
15. The Defendant Cecil Vote is sentence to 9 years imprisonment.

Orders of the Court

1. Defendant Cecil Vote is sentence to imprisonment for 9 years,
2. The time spent in custody for this case to be deducted from the sentence,
3. Right to appeal,
4. No further orders.

THE COURT
Hon. Justice Leonard R Maina
PUSINE JUDGE