HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Iromea 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	4 April 2025	
		
Parties: 	Rex v Mathias Iromea	
		
Date of hearing: 	21 February 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	512 of 2023	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Keniapisia; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. Mr. Iromea, I sentence you to 13 years imprisonment, subject to further reductions for pre-trial detention time as determined by Rove Correctional Service. Your term of imprisonment will start to run from today’s date.	
		
Representation: 	Ms Naqu and MS Oroi for the Crown 
Ms Kukura for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016, S 139 (1) (a), S 142 (2)	
		
Cases cited:	R v Sinatau [2023] SBCA 38, R v Ramaia [2021] SBHC 96, Regina v Bonuga [2014] SBCA 22, R v Liufirara [2023] SBCA 10, Bade v R [2023] SBCA 39, Alu v Reginam [2016] SBCA 8, 	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINALJURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 512 of 2023

REX

V

MATHIAS IROMEA

Date of Hearing: 21 February 2025
Date of Sentence: 4 April 2025

Counsel Ms Naqu and Ms Oroi for the Crown 
Counsel Ms Kukura for the Defendant 

Keniapisia; PJ
Sentence 
1. 	By verdict delivered on 13/12/2024, Mr. Iromea, I convicted you for two counts of sexual abuse offences against two female victims under the consenting age. The first female victim was Miss. Betty Maelau (BM). Although you were charged for 2 counts in respect of BM, I found you guilty of one count only, in relation to the incident where you went and called BM to come and sweep inside your kitchen house, in the LDA area, at Betikama.
2. 	As BM was sweeping, you exposed your penis and showed it to her. At paragraph 8 (i) to (vi) of the verdict, I found that BM tried to run away, but you threw a stone at her. She fell to the ground. You carried her into your kitchen house and had sexual intercourse with her. I convicted you for count 1 – sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years, contrary to Section 139 (1) (a) of the 2016 Act.
3. 	The maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment, where the child is under 13 years (Section 139(1) (a) of the 2016 Act). This is a serious offence. The 2016 Act was enacted to protect young girls and women from multiple sexual abuse types stipulated under the said Act. The Court however has the power to impose a lesser sentence term. 
4. 	The starting point sentence for offences of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 15 years is 8 years (R-v- Sinatau, SICOA-CRAC 14 of 2023, 13th October 2023). Here BM was 11 years old. Hence, I set the start point sentence at 8 years. 
5. 	I identify the following serious aggravating features: -
(i) 	Disparity of age – Iromea was 49 years. BM was 11 years old, an age gap of 38 years. As an older person (uncle) there is an expectation for Iromea to be responsible and accountable in protecting BM from this kind of offending (R v Ramaia, [2021], SBHC 96)
(ii) 	Psychological harm and trauma – Court should always take judicial notice of the long-term impacts and trauma on the victim despite lack of medical and professional evidence (Bonuga, Court of Appeal 2014). Despite a lack of observable physical harm, in all rape or sexual offence cases, the level of psychological harm that creates ongoing issues for the victim is well documented and can be taken judicial notice of as per Bonuga (Liufirara, Court of Appeal 2022).
(iii) 	Position of trust breached - This is the worst aggravating factor against you. You are the victim’s uncle, the biological brother of her mother. You have a moral duty to protect your own niece from all forms of sexual abuse and sexual defilement. Instead you did the exact opposite to her due to your immoral sexual desires. That is a serious and regrettable inhuman breach of your moral duty as an uncle. In addition, family or blood ties between you and the victim have been sexually violated, meaning this is a domestic violence issue and calls for serious aggravation. Violence that occurs within the domestic relationship, let alone sexual violence (abuse) must be condemned. It is an abuse of the family as a unit and must never go unpunished. We are a society that prides itself on worthy customs and cultures. It is our worthy custom to render love, care, respect and security to our female relatives. It is a moral value and duty we cherish in custom, deeply rooted in blood relationship and kinship ties.
(iv) 	Use of weapon and threat – Iromea you threw a stone at BM. She fell to the ground. You came and carried her into your kitchen and had penial sexual intercourse with her. Evidence I found at trial also showed you used a knife to threaten BM. 
(v) 	Young age of the victim – BM was 11 years of age in the year 2022, when you had sexual intercourse with her. According to Sinatau, Court of Appeal 2023 the age of the victim can be taken into account both in setting a starting point and when considering aggravating factors. The aggravating effect will usually be greater, the younger the child (victim). At 11 years old, your niece was not even a teenager. She was considered a very young child/girl in terms of her sexual intactness, purity, virginity and dignity, all of which are highly treasured morally for young girls under 15 years or 18 years. Furthermore, BM is too young for her cerebral innocence to be taken away in such a sexually defiling manner. Your sexually abusive actions took away her right as a child to create long-lasting, safe and happy memories and instead replaced them with nudity, and sexual violence that is traumatic and forever will be instilled in her memories with adverse lasting effects on her mentality.
(vi) 	Vulnerability and weakness - A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited by an attacker. A male is stronger than a female, in terms of their gender composition. In this case Iromea exerted his strength over the weaker and more vulnerable BM when he tricked her (called her to sweep), shot her with a stone and threatened her with a knife. She was tricked, threatened and overpowered resulting in her surrendering her body for sexual use by Iromea, the male attacker, who saw it fit to exploit her vulnerable and weak gender to achieve his sexual desires. The weak cannot fight back. The strong will exploit that weakness to exert control and power to achieve his will over the weaker gender, as it happened to BM in Iromea’s kitchen house at LDA area, Betikama. 
(vii) 	Physical harm – You were convicted for penial sexual intercourse with BM, a child under 15 years contrary to Section 139 (1) (a) of the 2016 Act. It is hard to imagine how a small girl of 11 years old could subsist such sexual abuse. An adult like you to have penial sexual intercourse with an 11 years old female victim would undoubtedly cause serious vaginal injury. There is no doubt her virginity and sexual purity were crushed. The very act of rape is a physical violation of a victim and physical harm is inherent in it (R v Liufirara [2023] SBCA 10; SICOA-CRAC 30 OF 2022 (28 April 2023). 
(viii) 	Pre-planning - Sexual abuse that happens to a niece in the home under the care and custody of her own uncle must be pre-planned because this is something that is seriously wrong and should not be happening in the home. Therefore, the uncle to be doing this unusual thing in the home needs some kind of prior thoughts, preplanning and careful execution of plans on the part of the accused. The accused cannot say it was a coincidence. Evidence shows that the accused and victim are family related and were all residing as neighbours together in LDA area, at Betikama.
6. 	For all of the above 8 serious aggravating factors combined, I will uplift the start point sentence by 8 more years (one year for each aggravating factor). Increases due to serious aggravation must be made in years and not merely in weeks and months (Bade, Court of Appeal, 2023). That brings me to 16 years total head sentence before mitigation. 
7. 	Then I identify the following mitigating factors which will reduce the head sentence downwards: -
(i)	First time offender with no previous conviction – I give a 2 years reduction. 
(ii)	Defendant’s old age – The defence submit that the defendant was 49 years at the time of offending in 2022. Now he will be around 52 years. Counsel relied on Lokohia case and submitted that old age should drastically reduce the sentence for Iromea. However, Mr. Iromea is yet to reach the threshold life expectancy age between 63 to 66 years for males in the Solomon Islands. Hence he is not qualified under old age. I will reluctantly give 1-year reduction because Iromea is yet to reach the life expectancy threshold age. 
(iii)	Delay – There are some delays. It should be noted that this case has a criminal reference number of 2023 for a crime that took place in the year 2022. And it was tried, and a verdict was given in 2024. So really there is no delay. Nevertheless, I deduct 1 year, rather reluctantly though I cannot say there was a long delay here.
(iv)	Compensation – Compensation is a worthy custom. It reconciles parties and restores social harmony. I deduct 1 year. 
(v)	Personal circumstances – I take heed of the defendant’s personal circumstances only to a limited extent and deduct 1 year. 
8. 	For all of the above 6 mitigating factors combined, I deduct a total of 6 years. That leaves me with a total head sentence of 10 years for sexual intercourse with BM. 
Appropriate sentence for the offence against Elsie Amoa
9. 	The second female victim was Miss Elsie Amoe (EA). Mr. Iromea, you were charged with one count of persistent sexual abuse, in respect of 3 separate incidences in which you had penial sexual intercourse with EA. I convict you in the same verdict delivered on 13/12/2024. Now I have to determine the appropriate sentence. This is a serious offence as reflected in the prescribed punishment of a life imprisonment (Section 142 (2) of the 2016 Act). However, I have the power to impose a lesser sentence term.
10. 	The starting point sentence for your offence is the same as the start point sentence for BM’s conviction above. Hence a start point sentence of 8 years is set because you have unlawful sexual intercourse with a female child under the age of 15 years. Miss. EA was only 13 years old at the material time of offending.
11. 	Then I identify the same 8 serious aggravating factors as in BM above. The only other additional aggravating feature in respect of the offence against EA, is repetitive offending, bringing the total to 9 aggravating features. Hence, I identify 9 serious aggravating features altogether.
12. 	I will increase the sentence upwards by 9 more years (1 year for each aggravating factor). Increases due to serious aggravating factors, should be made in years and not merely in weeks and months (Bade, Court of Appeal, 2023). That will bring me to 17 years total head sentence before mitigation. 
13. 	The same mitigation factors as for BM will also apply here. Hence, I deduct the head sentence by 6 years. The final head sentence I will impose is 11 years. 
14. 	I give 10 years total head sentence term for the offence against BM. And for EA, I give 11 years total head sentence term. The next issue I have to settle is, whether to make the two sentences run concurrent or consecutive in effect?
Whether the two sentence terms should run concurrent or consecutive?
15. 	On the basis of Alu v Reginam [2016] SBCA 8, the offending (offences) here cannot be seen to be part of a single transaction to the extent that the two offences or sexual abuses were committed on two separate victims, on different occasions, at different times. Hence the two sentences imposed above should run consecutively rather than concurrently, meaning the defendant will serve a total of 21 years cumulative head sentence.
16. 	However, as I stand back and look at the total cumulative head sentence, I can see that it has a crushing effect on the defendant. Considering the totality principle, the appropriate term to impose is a discounted 13 years imprisonment. This sentence term will still reflect the gravity of the two sexual abuse offences Mr. Iromea committed on the two victims.
Conclusion and Orders
17. 	The gravity of the two offences is reflected in the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, prescribed by Parliament. In the 2016 Act, Parliament introduced new sexual offences and increased the penalty. Parliament’s intent was to protect women and girls from sexual abuse by men, who are normally in a position of trust to their female child victims, as in this case.
18. 	Sexual offences against women and girls are on the rise in Solomon Islands. The courts continue to emphasize that the increasing prevalence of this kind of sexual offending in our society calls for deterrent sentences.
19. 	This court has a duty to see that sentences it imposed gives out a powerful deterrent factor to prevent the commission of such offences. Offenders must receive harsher punishments to mark society’s outrage and denunciation against sexual abuse of women and girls. The main purpose of the punishment I give here is to condemn your action and to protect the public from the commission of such crimes by making it clear to you and others with similar impulses that anyone who yields to this kind of crime will meet with severe punishments.
20. 	Mr. Iromea, I sentence you to 13 years imprisonment, subject to further reductions for pre-trial detention time as determined by Rove Correctional Service. Your term of imprisonment will start to run from today’s date.
THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE