Public Prosecutor v Sorinmal [1998] VUSC 67; Criminal Case No 013 of 1997 (7 October 1998)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

HELD AT LUGANVILLE/SANTO

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No.13 of 1997

File No.6 of 1998

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-VS-

SILVAIN SORINMAL

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A Saksak

Mr William Falau - Clerk

Counsel: Inspector Wilson Garae for Public Prosecutor

Mr Hillary Toa for Defendant

SENTENCE

The Defendant appeared before this Court on 18th August 1998 and pleaded guilty to a charge of incest contrary to section 95 and not guilty to a charge of rape contrary to section 91 of the Penal Code Act [CAP.135].

After having read the provision of section 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act [CAP.136] to the Defendant and having recorded same, the Prosecution apply to enter a nolle prosequi pursuant to section 29 of the CPC Act in respect of the rape charge. With regard to the charge of incest the Prosecution referred to statement of the victim One Viridiana Sorinmal, second daughter of the Defendant. The incident occurred in the garden.

It is admitted by the Defendant that he was tempted when he saw her daughter's breast and he made her remove her clothes and he had intercourse with her. The Defendant made clear statements of admission to the Police on 12 December 1997.

The Defendant pleads in mitigation custom ceremony which took place at his village in which the chiefs ordered that he pay custom fine by a pig with rounded-tusk and vt2,000 to his family. This has been done. I was referred to section 119 of the CPC Act which states that in assessing penalty the court shall take into account any compensation or reparation made by the offender under custom.

The Court takes a serious view to this offence especially because it has occurred between a father and his daughter. A father is supposed to be the head of his family with a responsibility to care for, provide for, protect and guard his children. Here the defendant was selfish to satisfy himself again on his own daughter. Evidence suggest the daughter was a virgin. Virginity is a virtue which a girl should be proud of when she is presented to her husband on their first night of marriage. This girl has lost that privilege. All because of the selfishness of her father. That is the reason why incestuous relationship between a father and a daughter must be frowned upon and must be taken as serious.

If it were not for the custom settlement that the Defendant has performed the Court would have imposed a slightly higher prison term but in the circumstances, I thought the appropriate term to impose on the Defendant was 16 months imprisonment. Accordingly the Court orders that the Defendant serve a total of 16 months in jail. It is further ordered that the 11 months the Defendant has already served in jail awaiting trial be deducted. That means the Defendant has a balance of 5 months to serve.

DATED at Luganville this 7th day of October, 1998.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A SAKSAK

Judge of the Supreme Court