R v Mewa [2023] SBHC 173; HCSI-CRC 715 of 2021 (24 March 2023)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Mewa
Citation:
Date of decision:	24 March 2023
Parties:	Rex v Nickson Mewa
Date of hearing:	22 March 2023
Court file number(s):	715 of 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Maina; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The Defendant is sentence to 4 years imprisonment. 2. The time spent in custody from the 30 October 2021 when he was remanded in custody to this date to be deducted from this sentence 3. Accused to serve the remainder of the sentence. 4. No further order
Representation:	Suifa’asia M & Mono for the Crown Kwalai D for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (sexual Offences) Act 2016 S 139 F (1) (a) and (b)
Cases cited:	R v Ligiau and Dori [1986] SBHC 13,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 715 of 2021

REX

V

NICKSON MEWA

Date of Hearing: 22 March 2023
Date of Sentence: 24 March 2023

Suifa’asia M & mono A for the Crown
Kwalai D for the Defendant

SENTENCE

Maina PJ:

You, Defendant Nickson Mewa charged with the offence of rape contrary to section 139 F (1) (a) and (b) of the Penal Code (Sexual Offences) Act 2016. You pleaded guilty on the charge and upon own plea was convicted on the offence.

Agreed Summary of Facts

Defendant Nickson Mewa comes from Banea Village, Santa Cruz, Temotu Province and at the time of the incident he was 21 years old.

Complainant Lisbeth Me’enoda is from Polhidema Settlement, Bagovu Village, Koviloko Ward, Isabel Province and at the time of incident she was 20 years old.

On 26 June 2020, the Defendant was on his way to the garden and then went to the victim’s house. At that time, the victim and her two younger siblings, Jayvin Teikokoni and Brizlyn Sandy were in the kitchen. Complainant and the children were alone at home, as their mother and father went to Buala to sell their food products at the market.

The Victim was preparing food for them when the Defendant arrived and came into the kitchen. The Victim was smoking and the Defendant asked the victim for fire to light his smoke. The two children then left the kitchen and went to play near the mandarin and bush apple trees.

The Defendant lit his smoke and told the victim that he liked her and asked the victim to have sexual intercourse with him, but the victim did not want to. The Defendant then forced the victim to have sexual intercourse with him. He forced her to lay down and take off her clothes.

The victim then laid down on a bed in the kitchen and the Defendant pushed his penis into her vagina. Then he ejaculated on her stomach, he stood up and left.

The victim was not happy with what happened and she went to their family dwelling house. She called to Jayvin and Brizlyn to come to her, and she told them that the Defendant did something bad to her.

A year later, the victim told her mother and then report the matter to the Police.

Maximum Penalty

The offence of rape is a serious offence and maximum penalty is life imprisonment

Starting Point

The case of R v Ligiau and Dori [1986] SBHC 13; [1985 – 1986] SILR 214 (3 September 1986) sets the starting point of the offence of rape to be 5 years.

Aggravating features and mitigation

For the aggravating features, both the Crown and Defence counsels submitted that there is an abuse of trust by the accused and to take care of the complainant as sister –in-law. The offender is married to her cousin and she expect protection or aid from him.

On the mitigation, credit for plea of guilty and being the first offender, I take into account these in the sentence. I also note and recognise in the sentence that the accused had changed his earlier not guilty plea to plea of guilty. This has serve the court’s time and resources.

I noted the case laws on the sentence referred to by both counsels and I appreciate them as relevant for consideration. At the same time, it must also be noted that each case defend on its own facts and circumstances.

For this case, the accused is a young man, his age was 21 years and victim was 20 years, a disparity of age may be one year or less and would not play much part as aggravating feature.

Taking into account the facts, aggravating features and mitigation I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence for the accused is 4 years imprisonment.

Order of the court

1. The Defendant is sentence to 4 years imprisonment.
2. The time spent in custody from the 30 October 2021 when he was remanded in custody to this date to be deducted from this sentence
3. Accused to serve the remainder of the sentence.
4. No further order

THE COURT
Hon. Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge