Public Prosecutor v Tula [2001] VUSC 63; Criminal Case No 179 of 2001 (3 July 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 179 o1

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

V.

SANIOS CLEMENT TULA

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. Saksak

Clerk: Ms CynthCynthia Thomas

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Counsels: Mr Hillary Toa for the Defendants.

Inspector Wilson D. Garae, State Prosecutor for Public Prosecutor.

SENTENCE

The Defendant is charged withitting incest contrary to section 95 of the Penal Code Act [CAP.135]. It is alleged tged that in November 1999 at his home in Turtle Bay, East Santo, the defendant had sexual intercourse with his daughter by the name of Primson Sanios.

On arraignment today the defendant admits the charge mitigation Mr Toa urged the Court to take into account the defendant’s clean pa past, his cooperation with the police and his voluntary admission to the police and the court, the deep remorse he now has and the adverse effect upon him physically and mentally for the rest of his life. That he has to now provide not only for his wife and children but also for his daughter and her child by him. That as a first offender he deserves only a suspended sentence which in itself is still a dangerous sentence. That the defendant has been in jail for the last 11 months from 23^rd August, 2000.

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> I have thought about these factors. But iview this is a case where custodial sentence has to be imposed. The unchallenged fact facts of the case is that the incident occurred at night when the girl was asleep. She was not aware of what was done to her by her father. She eventually woke up but her father was in the middle of his activity.

As a married man defendant was selfish and and he was driven by lust to have intercourse with his own daughter. In the circumstances in which it happened, it was near to rape. That is why the Court views it as serious and has to impose a custodial sentence.

On the defendant’s own plea of guilty and forreasons given, I sentence the defendant to a total of 15 months in jail. I order that the 11 months he has already spent in jail be deducted accordingly. In effect, the defendant will serve only the balance of 4 months.

DATED at Luganville, this 3^rd day of July,

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> BYCOURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge