R v Solopoto [2024] SBHC 190; HCSI-CRC 511 of 2017 (29 October 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLAND

Case name:	R v Solopoto
Citation:
Date of decision:	29 October 2024
Parties:	Rex v George Solopoto and Elizabeth Koka
Date of hearing:
Court file number(s):	511 of 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Maina; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	(I) George Solopoto is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. (II) Elizabeth Koka is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment (III) The period of 5 years spent by each in custody and any other times in custody to be deducted from their respective sentences. (IV) No further orders.
Representation:	Manu O R for the Crown Aupai S for the First Defendant Kama F B for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016, S 136 F, S 136 G, Penal Code S 21
Cases cited:	Bade v R [2023] SBCA 39, R v Liva [2017] SBCA 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 511 of 2017

REX

V

GEORGE SOLOPOTO
First Defendant

AND

ELIZABETH KOKA
Second Defendant

Date of Judgment: 29 October 2024

Manu O R for the Crown
Aupai S for the First Defendant
Kama F B for the Second Defendant

SENTENCE

Maina PJ:

1. You, George Solopoto was convicted by this court for sexual intercourse with Ms Betsy Manedika without her consent contrary to section 136 F of the Penal Code (Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.
2. And you, Elizabeth Koka was also was convicted by this court for compelling or aiding and abetting your husband George Solopoto to have sex with Mrs Betsy Manedika contrary to section 136 G of the Penal Code (Amendment (Sexual Offence) Act 2016 and section 21 of the Penal Code.

Facts

3. This incident occurred on 1^st July 2017 when the defendants with the victim went to Olevuga Village to attend a 10 days’ custom wake up of a death man.
4. As it got dark in the evening at Olevuga village, Solopoto, his wife Koka and victim Bets went to a house. The victim though they went there to pick a pot to cook the food for the night, instead the Solopoto went and bought the drinks (liquor).
5. From there, Solopoto led them to a point at the seaside between Olevuga and Tubila villages. As they went along the road. Solopoto started to drink the beers.
6. They arrived at a place but Betsy did not want to follow Solopoto and his wife down to the beach. She stood at the road but Koka came back, held her hand and pulled her down to his husband who was already on the beach at the seaside.
7. At the beach, Solopoto drank the drinks and he pulled down his trousers and shirt and held on Betsy’s left hand and his wife Koka held the other.
8. Solopoto asked his wife Koka to “lolem” lick his husband’s penis and Solopoto to “lolem” lick his wife’s vagina, which they did and held on Betsy’s hands.
9. As the defendant played on each other with the sex 69 style, Betsy struggled and got out from them and ran away but it was night and she fell down on a stone.
10. Solopoto ran behind Betsy and brought her back to the beach where he pulled down Betsy’s trousers and tried to lay on top of her.
11. Betsy struggled with them but again Solopoto held on one side hand and his wife held the other. Solopoto went on top of the victim and pushed his penis inside Betsy’s vagina and he had sex with her.
12. When Solopoto had sex with the victim, they were disturbed by a man who came and torched at them. His wife Koka went to that man and tried to hide or stop the torch shining towards her husband and Betsy. Koka asked the man what he was dong there but the man kept quiet and went away.

Maximum Penalty

13. The maximum penalty for rape under section 136 F of the Penal Code (Amendment (Sexual offences) Act 2016 is life imprisonment and for compelled sexual intercourse also life imprisonment.

Starting Point

14. The recent case of the Court of Appeal Bade v R^[1] has overruled the starting point on rape case that was set in the Ligiau case. This Bade v R sets a new guideline of the starting point on the contested and guilty plea of the rape case.
15. In that case, the Court of Appeal stated that the new guidelines starting point for a contested rape should now be eight years imprisonment and guilty plea it should be six years.
16. With this case, it is a contested rape, aids, and abets and the appropriate starting point is 8 years on each of the charge against the defendants.

Mitigating factors

17. Counsel Aupai for Solopoto is his submission asked the court to take into account the good behaviour, cooperation with the Police, no previous conviction, time spent in custody rehabilitation and the delay of 7 years as the mitigating factors in the sentence.
18. Counsel Kama for the defendant Koka raised similar mitigating factors as presented for her husband Solopoto.
19. As usual, the mitigating factors the court will be taken into account in the sentence. However, with Counsel Aupai on the submission on his client of good behaviour in his life until he committed this offence of rape, it appears to have no merit because that behaviour to should be with the no previous conviction.

Aggravating factors

20. For the case of Solopoto and his wife Koka, these are the aggravating factors:
    • (a) Age disparity
    • (b) Breach of trust
    • (c) Offence committed at night
    • (d) Solopoto was under the influence of liquor
21. It is always stated that the aggravating factors create the offence to be serious.

Analysis

22. All the counsels seem to agree in the sentencing submission with the mitigating factors i.e. no previous conviction, time spent in custody awaiting trial in this case them, delay of 7 years and rehabilitation. I note them and these are relevant mitigating factors for Solopoto and his wife Koka.
23. With the aggravating factors, they are matters that need to be considered thoroughly and appropriately, as it would be the consideration or decide the uplift of any years of sentence from the starting point.
24. With the age disparity, Solopoto was 48 years old and victim Betsy was 17 years old, an age difference of 31 years. Offender Koka was 42 years the age difference was 25 years. With offenders of such ages or adult, they ought to have respect for young girls as the victim.
25. The offenders had breached the trust expected from them and on the fact that the offenders and victim are from the same village may be related to each other.
26. Offender Koka asked the victim’s mother to help her dig cassava for the 10 days after the death at Olevuga village. Victim’s mother allowed her daughter to follow them. The mother entrusted on the offender Solopoto and his wife Koka to look after her daughter and allowed the victim to go with them. Instead they abused the daughter.
27. Solopoto committed the offence with the assistance of his wife Koka to a vulnerable young girl.
28. The offender Solopoto and his wife Koka were under the influence of liquor when Solopoto raped and his wife compelled or aided and abetted him to rape the victim.
29. Worse, so the incident occurred in the night at an isolated place from the villages.
30. In the case R v Liva^[2], the Court of Appeal stated that there may be no evidence that the victim had suffered severe or lasting psychological harm. However, the offences affected the psychological and emotional harm of the victim and “judicial notice needs to be taken of the devastating effect on the victim, especially young victims as in this case. The psychological trauma cannot be ignored^[3].”
31. In this case, victim Betsy was 17 years old or young compared to the offenders, long life to go and such experience would traumatize her and would affect her psychologically and emotionally.
32. Crown Counsel Manu submits that the court should take into account that what had happened has the elements of pre planning by the offenders as the offenders had lied to Betsy and led her to an isolated place between Olevuga village and Tubila Village. Solopoto had told them to go and find a pot for cooking instead he went and bought the bear and led them to the road to Tubila Village. Victim Betsy did not want to go and find the pot with the offenders and she suggested that Kolikonara to go with them but Solopoto did not agree for Kolikonara to follow them.
33. With this submission on pre planning by the offenders, the facts disclosed that it was at first day of attending the 10 days’ custom wake up of a death when this incident occurred. That to my view would not amount to pre planning. Otherwise, it was incidental and I decline to accept this submission as an aggravating factor in this case.
34. I have fixed the starting point and to uplift the sentence would be a consideration of any extreme violence surrounding and including the act of rape that resulted to violent digital penetrating and bleeding.
35. The act of violence of the offenders should be when Koka held Betsy’s hand and pulled her down to Solopoto at the beach. Solopoto pulled down his trousers and shirt and held Betsy’s left hand and his wife Koka held the other.
36. Betsy struggled and managed to pull out and ran away from them but Solopoto ran behind, held and brought her back to the beach.
37. At the beach, Betsy resisted but Solopoto held one side of her hands and his wife the other. Solopoto laid Betys on the ground and he pushed his penis inside her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her.
38. The above acts relate to both offenders and certainly, the court will take into account in the sentences. For offender Koka, it is the aiding and abetting of her own husband to have sexual intercourse with Betsy or another woman.
39. Solopoto, your act is not only abuse and breach of trust but disgraceful, cruel to your family, people, place or community. It is beyond a normal human behaviour, understanding to have sexual intercourse another woman (Betsy) in the presence of your wife and worse so with her assisting you. Such acts by you is ridiculous or absurd, outrageous and shameful. Otherwise, you deserve not to exist in our communities.
40. With your wife Koka, you too had abused and breach of trust expect on you to take care of the victim. But you allowed you husband to have sexual intercourse in front of you. Such act or behaviour is totally not accepted to any reasonable human being and particularly for a husband to have sexual intercourse with another girl or woman. This is an act of silly or insane person. An outrageous, disgraceful and shameful on you.
41. This case is extraordinary thus cruel, disgraceful, no respect to their family, people, community and against the sanctity of marriage according to our Christian way of living in our communities. Both accuses must be sentence accordingly and although they deserve the serious-minded sentences it must clearly show deterrence to the both defendants and to any or couple who think to involve with type of sexual behaviours.
42. Upon considering the facts, mitigation and aggravating features and the submissions of both the Crown and defence counsels, I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence for Solopoto is 10 years imprisonment and wife Koka is 8 years imprisonment.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(I) George Solopoto is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
(II) Elizabeth Koka is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment
(III) The period of 5 years spent by each in custody and any other times in custody to be deducted from their respective sentences.
(IV) No further orders.

THE COURT
Honourable Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge

---

^[1] [2023] SBCA 39, SICOA-CRAC 9017 of 2023 (13 October 2023)
^[2] [2017] SBCA 20
^[3] As above