Police v SC [2009] WSSC 77 (17 July 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

BETWEEN:

POLICE
Prosecution

AND:

SC
male of Vaiusu-uta.
Accused in person

Counsel: A Patu for prosecution
Accused in person

Sentence: 17 July 2009

SENTENCE

The Name Suppression Order will continue for the defendant and the victim.

The Victim

The victim in this case is the foster daughter of the defendant; she is the eldest of the defendant’s five children. She was aged 15 years at the time the offences were committed. She suffered severe physical pain during the two incidents of rape.

The Defendant

The defendant is aged 40 years; he is married with five children from the village of Vaiusu-uta.

The Offending

The first incident of rape was committed in December 2008. The victim was asleep in a sitting room when she felt someone removed her lavalava and panties; she woke up and saw the defendant who told her not to make a sound. The defendant then proceeded to rape her despite her attempts to resist.

Three months later in March 2009 the defendant again raped this young girl. The defendant and the victim were returning from the Apia Police station when they went to an isolated area at Vaiusu-uta where the defendant forced the victim to lie down. He then proceeded to remove her clothes before he forcefully had sex with her.

In March 2009 on three occasions indecently assaulted the victim. It is therefore difficult to accept what the defendant told the court that he was tempted because over the period of three months he sexually violated this young girl.

Aggravating Factors

As the stepfather there was a gross breach of trust, the defendant took advantage of his authoritarian rank in the family to satisfy his sexual lust. Despite attempts by the victim before and during the two acts of rape the defendant took advantage of his strength to overpower the victim and committed the offences. The other aggravating factor is the age difference between the victim and the defendant; she was 15 years and the defendant was 40 years.

There is also prevalence of this type of offending. These offences were also premeditated and the defendant would have continued if the victim did not have the courage to report.

Mitigating Factor

The only mitigating factor I find in this case is the early guilty plea by the defendant.

Discussions

For these offences the only issue for the court to consider is the length of the custodial sentence to be imposed. The term of imprisonment must be a lengthy one to punish the defendant and to deter other like minded men, fathers, grandfathers, step fathers from committing the same shameful conduct.

The prevalence of this type of offending; the public outcry to denounce and condemn and the need to protect our young girls and women warrants a lengthy term of imprisonment.

For the two charges of rape I take eight years as a starting point. For the aggravating factors that I mentioned I will add another two years. For the early guilty plea I will deduct twelve months. For each charge of rape the defendant therefore sentence to 9 years imprisonment to be served concurrently and they will commence from the 3rd April 2009 when the defendant was remanded in custody.

On each charge of indecent assault he is sentenced to two years imprisonment and those terms are to be served concurrently with the nine years for the rape charges.

JUSTICE VAAI