Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Vanuatu |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL CASE No. 01 of 2004
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-v-
GEORGE DICK
Coram: Chief Justice Lunabek
Counsels: Mr. Nicholas Mirou Public Prosecutor
Mr. John William Timakata for the defendant
SENTENCE
This is the sentence of the defendant, George Dick. The defendant was charged with the offence of Incest, contrary to Section 95 of the Penal Code Act [CAP. 135]. He pleaded guilty to the offence as charged.
This is a serious offence as reflected by the maximum penalty imposed by Parliament of 10 years imprisonment.
The facts show that the case is about a father sexually abusing, molesting his daughter for a number of years. The incident started in 1998 when the girl victim was 8 years of age until the matter was reported to the girl’s natural mother and to the police in late November 2003.
The defendant is 35 years of age. He is from the Island of Tongoa, Meriu Village. He is employed as a Chef at Melanesian Hotel. The Court is informed by the defence counsel about the following:
These are mitigating factors submitted on behalf of the defendant. The Court considers and takes all of them into account.
The following are aggravating factors:
- the derogatory remarks about him owning her vagina;
- she belonged to him;
- he committed other undignified acts such as cunnilingus, fingering her vagina, and having to commit sexual intercourse.
A father has the obligation/duty to protect and care for his child. The facts of this case show that the defendant/father breached that fundamental obligation in the most terrible and damaging way. There will be no peace within the defendant’s household. The defendant is a chef at Melanesian Hotel. He knows better the importance of upholding the law which are neglected in his instructions to his counsel in mitigating pleas.
On the assessment and balance the principals are simple. Parents who use their children for their own sexual gratification will go to prison. It is almost impossible to imagine circumstances in which that will not be the necessary response. (PP v. Gratien Bae, Court of Appeal (C.A.), Criminal Case No. 3 of 2003).
The defendant, George Dick, cannot escape imprisonment penalty. The mitigating features cannot overweigh the aggravating factors in the present case.
A custodial sentence is necessary for a variety of reasons. Firstly, to mark the gravity of the offence. Secondly, to emphasize public disapproval. Thirdly, to serve as a warning to others. Fourthly, to punish the offender. Finally to protect the children and in this case the child girl.
I accept the prosecution submission that incest has become a common feature in the Republic of Vanuatu and is on the rise as confirmed by the reported indecencies of community disapproval given the fact that customary obligations have become the norm for solving such matters. This has become far too frequent and is becoming a real social problem within the family circle and one that is not in harmony with the principle of family. The custom ceremony is only relevant to any eventual sentencing proceedings after the offence is proven and for the offences of which the maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment. This is what Section 119 of the Criminal Procedure Code [CAP. 136] contemplates. Custom ceremony to “clear and clean the faces” between the offender, the family of the victim and the chiefs have been performed. The effect of custom settlement is to bring social peace and order. It has come about to appease the natural parents and family members. The custom settlement is not a substitute for the criminal sanctions that go with the crime of Incest. The punishment for this type of offence is imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years, and as such reflects on the Republic and its people. [See PP v. Gideon Mael – CR. 18 of 1998].
In the present case, 7 years imprisonment is the appropriate sentence for this offence. The defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity presented to him. He was remorseful and apologized for his wrongdoing. This will be taken in the accused’s credit and represent one third of the appropriate sentence.
The defendant is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with immediate effect.
Dated at Port-Vila this 17th day of March 2004
BY THE COURT
Vincent LUNABEK
Chief Justice
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2004/2.html