Public Prosecutor v Amos [1998] VUSC 91; CRC 021 1998 (17 November 1998)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR No. 21 of 1998

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-V-

NORMAN AMOS

Public Prosecutor for the State
Public Solicitor for the Defendant.

SER">SENTENCE

The Defendant was charge under Section 96(1)(a) for that sometimes in the month of June 1998 at Pango, the Defendant exual intercourse with Coll Collin Obed who was under his care at that time who was under 20 years at that time.

The maximum Penalty for such offence is 10 years imprisonment, which is a serious offence under the law. The Defendant admitted having sexual intercourse with the girl and at that time she was staying with them. The girl whilst with him and his family also want the Defendant to find her some pornographic magazine which was explain by the defendant that it was hard to get those kind of material around Vila. She even wanted the Defendant to pay her a spade and a stereo. The defendant proposed to her that if she satisfies his needs then he will satisfy her needs. The Defendant in the month of June had sex with her and she than told her brother that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her and her brother wanted to assault her what had happened. The matter was to be settle amongst the relatives but the relative did not agree. The matter was referred to the police and the defendant wrote a letter to the police to withdraw the charge which the relatives did not agree to and the defendant was charged.

The defendant had no prior conviction and he pleaded guilty to the charge. The relationship between the wife and the defendant had come good again after that time. They have 3 children and he was employed as in carpenter at that time and he was the bread winner of the family. He was in remand as of from the 11 August 1998 till today. He is prepared to pay up to 40, 000 vatu court fine for what he did.

In this type of case under Section 96 there is no defense as to consent as consent is not a defense or excuse too in mitigation of sentence. The girl was not 14 years old but over and has a boyfriend too. Further there is no evidence as to how long she has been together with the defendant’s family.

If the law of Vanuatu regards this type of offence as serious then the sentence too must reflect the seriousness of the offence. If this is so then the Court must impose a protective and deterrence sentence to ensure compliance with the law and to ensure protection of girls who are under the care of others at that time. In consideration the girl is mature and already has a boyfriend but this is not an excuse in law but I accept this in mitigation of sentence. Also the 3 months in custody will also be sufficient for the defendant to realize that what he did was wrong. Instead of imposing a custodial sentence as the penalty as prescribed under section 96 (1) (a) of the Penal Code. I will impose a stiffer court fine in reflecting the seriousness of the offence. For these reasons I will order the Defendant to pay a court fine of VT 50,000 as alternative penalty within two months in default to be imprisoned for one 1 week for every 1, 000 vatu not paid.

th Day of November 1998

R. MARUM MBE
Judge.