R v Mae [2024] SBHC 32; HCSI-CRC 233 of 2022 (28 March 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Mae
Citation:
Date of decision:	28 March 2024
Parties:	Rex v Medos Mae
Date of hearing:	21 March 2024 (Last Written Submission in)
Court file number(s):	233 of 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Keniapisia; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	Court will sentence you to 10 years imprisonment. Any further deduction like pre-trial custody entitlement will be accounted for by the relevant correctional authority. Defence Counsel put pre-trial custody entitlement at about 7 months. This punishment will deter like-minded offenders out in the community. For the defendant it will allow for a time of rehabilitation in the correctional facility
Representation:	Ms Oligari and Mr Auga for the Crown Mr Brook For the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offence) Act 2016 S 136 (f) (1) 9a) and (b) [cap 26], S F (1) (a) and (b)
Cases cited:	Bade v R [2023] SBCA 39, R v Bonuga [2014] SBCA 22, R v Ramaia [2021] SBHC 96, Bolami v R [2011] SBCA 26, R v Ligiau and Dori [1986] SBHC 15, R v Ba’a [2014] SBCA 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 233 of 2022

REX

V

MEDOS MAE

Date of Hearing: 21 March 2024 (Last Written Submission in)
Date of Sentence: 28 March 2024

Ms Oligari and Mr Auga for the Crown
Mr Brook for the Defendant

Keniapisia; PJ

SENTENCE

1. Court convicted you of rape on 20/10/2023 contrary to Section 136 (F) (1) (a) and (b) of the Penal Code Act (Cap 26), as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 – “the 2016 Act”. The offence you are convicted for is serious, as it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (Section F (1) (a) and (b) of the 2016 Act). However, the Court has power to impose a lesser sentence term.
2. The starting point sentence for your offending is 8 years, because this is a contested rape trial where the complainant is an adult (Bade –v- R, SICOA-CRAC, 17 of 2023). Then there are present, serious aggravating factors that must move the starting point sentence upwards. The serious aggravating factors are: psychological harm, disparity of age, physical harm, enticement, isolated spot, pre-planning etc. I will take turn to look at each of the aggravating features to justify the uplift of the start point: -
   • (i) Trauma and psychological harm – Court must always take judicial notice of long-term demeaning impact on the victim, despite lack of medical evidence (Regina v Bonuga [2014] SBCA 22).
   • (ii) Disparity of age - you were 32 years old at time of offending. Complainant was 22 years old. Age disparity was 10 years. As an older person, there is an expectation of being responsible and accountable in protecting young girls from this type of offending (R v Ramaia [2021] SBHC 96). I agree with this preposition in custom, because we are a communal society.
   • (iii) Physical harm – from evidence contained in the guilty verdict, you inflicted physical harm on the victim. You grabbed the victim, pushed her to the ground, sat on her belly and squeezed her neck, making her not able to breath (was unconscious). Victim had a discomfort pain/feeling inside her vagina. Her skirt got torn and she lost her slippers because she had to struggle with you to protect her sexual purity. Complainant was terrified and traumatised from the sexual ordeal she encountered with the defendant.
   • (iv) Pre-planning – defendant pre-planned his violent sexual attack on the complainant. Evidence at trial in the guilty verdict showed, he went to the tap at the seaside, where the victim was having a shower, asked her to drink from the running tap, gave $100.00 as inducement to the complainant, before violently attempting to have sexual penile penetration with her. He did not succeed and only touched inside victim’s vagina, because complainant resisted and struggled with defendant. That touching amounts to sexual intercourse under the 2016 Act, for which the defendant was already convicted.
   • (v) Isolated location – the evidence showed that the complainant shouted for help to no avail. This re-affirms the fact that the more isolated a location is, the greater the risk, threats and fear for the complainant. The defendant took advantage of the victim when she was alone at the seaside, having a shower at the water supply tap.
3. For all the above serious aggravating factors combined, I will uplift the start point sentence to 16 years, noting that the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. And that this case is serious because it involves some decree of serious violence (victim almost died from neck squeezing). But there are mitigating factors present to reduce it down.
4. First mitigating factor is delay. There is a lot of delay whether the normal procedural delay or otherwise. Delay whether reasonable or unreasonable in its genesis will have the same deleterious effect on the man awaiting sentence (Bolami v Regina [2011] SBCA 26). I will deduct 2 years for delay because this is a breach of defendant’s constitutional right to fair hearing within a reasonable time. First time offender with no previous convictions. I will deduct another 2 years. I will deduct a further 2 years for compensation payment. It is a worthy custom for it repairs social disharmony, restore peace and shows the culprit is taking responsibility for his wrongful actions. The final head sentence I will impose is 10 years.
5. Defence Counsel submitted and asked for reductions in respect of defendant’s personal circumstances – young offender, married with wife and children, feed family and raise children. However case law discouraged me from taking heed of such personal circumstances, when it comes to sexual offending sentencing (R v Ligiau & Dori [1986] SBHC 15, [1985 – 1986] SILR214 (3 September 1986) (Rex v Wilfred Ba’ai [2014] SBCA22).
6. Court will sentence you to 10 years imprisonment. Any further deduction like pre-trial custody entitlement will be accounted for by the relevant correctional authority. Defence Counsel put pre-trial custody entitlement at about 7 months. This punishment will deter like-minded offenders out in the community. For the defendant it will allow for a time of rehabilitation in the correctional facility.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE