IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 25 of 2022

STATE
V
ILIESA TORA

Counsel		:	Mr. Unal Lal for the State
				Ms. Keli Vulimainadave with Ms. Losana Taukei for the Accused
				
Sentence Hearing	:	19 April 2024 
Sentence		:	17 May 2024
The name of the complainant is suppressed. Accordingly, the complainant will be referred to as “WT”. 

SENTENCE

[1]	Iliesa Tora, as per the Amended Information filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), you were charged, with the following offences:

COUNT ONE
Statement of Offence 
RAPE: Contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (b) and (3) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of Offence 
ILIESA TORA, on the 8th day of October 2021, at Lautoka, in the Western Division, penetrated the vagina of WT, a child under 13 years, with his tongue. 

COUNT TWO
Statement of Offence 
RAPE: Contrary to Section 207 (1) and (2) (a) and (3) of the Crimes Act 2009. 
Particulars of Offence  
ILIESA TORA, on the 8th day of October 2021, at Lautoka, in the Western Division, had carnal knowledge of WT, a child under 13 years.

[2]	This matter was first called before the High Court on 4 March 2022. On 12 April 2022, the DPP filed and served the Information and the matter was adjourned for plea. The Disclosures relevant to the case was filed and served on 4 May 2022. As per the original Information filed Count 2 was a charge of Sexual Assault, contrary to Section 210 of the Crimes Act No. 44 of 2009 (Crimes Act).
[3]	On 9 August 2022, the State moved to file the Amended Information, which application was permitted by Court. You took your plea on the same day and pleaded not guilty to the two charges in the Amended Information. 
[4]	However, on 27 September 2023, you wished to take your plea again. On the said day, when the charges were put to you, you pleaded guilty to both counts in the Amended Information.    This Court was satisfied that you pleaded guilty on your own free will and free from any influence. Court found that you fully understood the nature of the charges against you and the consequences of your guilty plea.  
[5]	On 12 February 2024, the Summary of Facts were filed in Court and were read out and explained to you. You said you understood and agreed to the same. Accordingly, Court found your guilty plea in respect of the two counts of Rape to be unequivocal. I found that the facts support all elements of the two counts of Rape in the Amended Information, and found the said counts proved on the Summary of Facts agreed by you. Accordingly, I found you guilty on your own plea and I convicted you of the two counts of Rape as charged.  
[6]	Iliesa Tora, I now proceed to pass sentence on you.
[7]	The Summary of Facts filed by the State was as follows:  
	“The Accused is Iliesa Tora (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”), 40 years of age, Farmer of Abaca Settlement, Lautoka.
	The complainant is WT (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”), 10 years of age, student of Abaca Settlement, Lautoka.

1.	On the 8th of October 2021, between 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., the complainant was going towards the canteen when she was stopped by the accused. The accused held her hand and took her inside his house with the idea that he will allow her to watch cartoon on his mobile phone.

2.	Upon entering the house, the accused locked the door and made the complainant lie down on the bed whilst she was watching cartoon. He then removed her clothes and lay on top of her.

3.	The accused then inserted his penis into the complainant’s vagina and thereafter started licking her vagina.

4.	The accused was interrupted when he heard someone knocking on the door. The accused opened the door after wearing his clothes and saw two of the complainant’s brothers. The complainant walked out of the house whilst the brother of the complainant spoke to the accused.

5.	The accused was arrested and taken in for questioning. The Accused partially admitted to committing the offence in his record of interview. [Attached herewith is a copy of the caution interview of the accused].

6.	The complainant was medically examined on 12th October 2021. [Attached herewith is a copy of the medical report of the complainant].”

[8]	Iliesa Tora, you have admitted to the above Summary of Facts and taken full responsibility for your actions. 
[9]	As per her birth certificate the complainant’s date of birth is 13 October 2011. Therefore, at the time you perpetrated these offences on her, the complainant was just 10 years of age and, as such, a juvenile.      
[10]	Section 4(1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act No. 42 of 2009 (“Sentencing and Penalties Act”) stipulates the relevant factors that a Court should take into account during the sentencing process. The factors are as follows:
4. — (1) The only purposes for which sentencing may be imposed by a court are — 
(a) to punish offenders to an extent and in a manner which is just in all the circumstances;
(b) to protect the community from offenders;
(c) to deter offenders or other persons from committing offences of the same or similar nature;
(d) to establish conditions so that rehabilitation of offenders may be promoted or facilitated;
(e) to signify that the court and the community denounce the commission of such offences; or
(f) any combination of these purposes. 
[11]	I have duly considered the above factors in determining the sentence to be imposed on you, which is primarily to punish and deter offenders or other persons from committing such offences and also to signify that the Court and the community denounce the commission of such offences and also to protect the community.
[12]	Section 4(2) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act provides that a Court must also consider the following factors when sentencing an offender: 
(2) In sentencing offenders a court must have regard to — 
(a) the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence; 
(b) current sentencing practice and the terms of any applicable guideline judgment;
(c) the nature and gravity of the particular offence;
(d) the offender’s culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence;
(e) the impact of the offence on any victim of the offence and the injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence; 
(f) whether the offender pleaded guilty to the offence, and if so, the stage in the proceedings at which the offender did so or indicated an intention to do so; 
(g) the conduct of the offender during the trial as an indication of remorse or the lack of remorse;
(h) any action taken by the offender to make restitution for the injury, loss or damage arising from the offence, including his or her willingness to comply with any order for restitution that a court may consider under this Decree;
(i) the offender’s previous character;
(j) the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factor concerning the offender or any other circumstance relevant to the commission of the offence; and 
(k) any matter stated in this Decree as being grounds for applying a particular sentencing option.
[13]	I have duly considered the above factors as well in determining the sentence to be imposed on you. 
[14]	Iliesa Tora, the offence of Rape in terms of Section 207(1) of the Crimes Act carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.  
[15]	The severity of the offence of Rape was highlighted by the Fiji Court of Appeal in the case of Mohammed Kasim v. The State [1994] FJCA 25; AAU 21 of 93 (27 May 1994); where it was stated:
	“….It must be recognized by the Courts that the crime of rape has become altogether too frequent and that the sentences imposed by the Courts for that crime must more nearly reflect the understandable public outrage.” 
[16]	In the case of The State v Lasaro Turagabeci and Others (unreported) Suva High Court Crim. Case No. HAC0008.1996S; Pain J said:
“The Courts have made it clear that rapists will be dealt with severely. Rape is generally regarded as one of the gravest sexual offences. It violates and degrades a fellow human being. The physical and emotional consequences to the victim are likely to be severe. The Courts must protect women from such degradation and trauma. The increasing prevalence of such offending in the community calls for deterrent sentences.” 
[17]	In State v. Marawa [2004] FJHC 338; HAC 16T of 2003S (23 April 2004); His Lordship Justice Anthony Gates stated:
 “Parliament has prescribed the sentence of life imprisonment for rape. Rape is the most serious sexual offence. The Courts have reflected increasing public intolerance for this crime by hardening their hearts to offenders and meting out harsher sentences”.
“A long custodial sentence is inevitable. This is to mark the gravity of the offence as felt, and correctly so, by the community. Imprisonment emphasizes the public’s disapproval and serves as a warning to others who may hitherto regard such acts lightly. One must not ignore the validity of the imposition of condign punishment for serious crime. Lastly the sentence is set in order to protect women from such crimes: Roberts and Roberts (1982) 4 Cr. App R(S) 8; The State v Lasaro Turagabeci and Others (unreported) Suva High Court Crim. Case No. HAC0008.1996S.”
[18]	His Lordship Justice Daniel Goundar, in the case of State v. AV [2009] FJHC 24; HAC 192 of 2008 (2 February 2009); observed:
“….Rape is the most serious form of sexual assault. In this case a child was raped. Society cannot condone any form of sexual assaults on children. Children are our future. The Courts have a positive obligation under the Constitution to protect the vulnerable from any form of violence or sexual abuse. Sexual offenders must be deterred from committing this kind of offences”.
[19]	In the case of State v. Tauvoli [2011] FJHC 216; HAC 27 of 2011 (18 April 2011); His Lordship Justice Paul Madigan stated:
“Rape of children is a very serious offence indeed and it seems to be very prevalent in Fiji at the time. The legislation has dictated harsh penalties and the Courts are imposing those penalties in order to reflect society's abhorrence for such crimes. Our nation's children must be protected and they must be allowed to develop to sexual maturity unmolested. Psychologists tell us that the effect of sexual abuse on children in their later development is profound.” 
[20]	In the case of Felix Ram v. The State [2015] FJSC 26; CAV 12 of 2015 (23 October 2015); His Lordship Chief Justice Anthony Gates laid down the following factors that a Court should take into account when sentencing an offender who has been convicted of Rape:
	“(a) whether the crime had been planned, or whether it was incidental or opportunistic;

(b) whether there had been a breach of trust;
	(c) whether committed alone;
	(d) whether alcohol or drugs had been used to condition the victim;
	(e) whether the victim was disabled, mentally or physically, or was specially vulnerable as a child;
	(f) whether the impact on the victim had been severe, traumatic, or continuing;
	(g) whether actual violence had been inflicted;
	(h) whether injuries or pain had been caused and if so how serious, and were they potentially capable of giving rise to STD infections;
	(i) whether the method of penetration was dangerous or especially abhorrent;
	(j) whether there had been a forced entry to a residence where the victim was present;
	(k) whether the incident was sustained over a long period such as several hours;
	(l) whether the incident had been especially degrading or humiliating;
	(m) If a plea of guilty was tendered, how early had it been given. No discount for plea after victim had to go into the witness box and be cross-examined. Little discount, if at start of trial;
	(n) Time spent in custody on remand;
	(o) Extent of remorse and an evaluation of its genuineness;
	(p) If other counts or if serving another sentence, totality of appropriate sentence.”
[21]	His Lordship Justice Goundar in State v Apisai Takalaibau – Sentence [2018] FJHC 505; HAC 154 of 2018 (15 June 2018); making reference to statistics of Aggravated Burglary cases filed in the High Court in 2017 and 2018, stated that “A factor that influences sentencing is the prevalence of the offence in the community.…….The more prevalent is an offence, the greater the need is for deterrence and protection of the community.”
[22]	This has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Alfaaz v. State [2018] FJSC 17; CAV0009.2018 (30 August 2018); where it was recognized that the prevalence of cases of child rape calls for harsher punishments to be imposed by Courts. Their Lordships held:
	“According to the statistics released by the Director of Public Prosecutions Office it appears that a number of rape victims as well as victims under the age of 18 years and victims in domestic relationships or relatives were also victims of other serious sexual offences. The rape of children is a very serious offence and it is very frequent and prevalent in Fiji. The courts must impose harsh penalties dictated by the legislation. The courts should not leniently look at this kind of serious cases of rape of children of tender years when punishing the offenders.”
[23]	In the case of Anand Abhay Raj v. The State [2014] FJSC 12; CAV 0003 of 2014 (20 August 2014); Chief Justice Gates (with Justice Sathyaa Hettige and Madam Justice Chandra Ekanayake agreeing) endorsed the view that Rapes of juveniles (under the age of 18 years) must attract a sentence of at least 10 years and the acceptable range of sentences or sentencing tariff is between 10 and 16 years imprisonment.
[24]	However, in the case of Aitcheson v State [2018] FJSC 29; CAV0012 of 2018 (2 November 2018); His Lordship Chief Justice Gates (with Justice Saleem Marsoof and Madam Justice Chandra Ekanayake agreeing) stated that the sentencing tariff for the Rape of a juvenile should now be increased to between 11 and 20 years imprisonment. His Lordship held:
	“The tariff previously set in Raj v The State [2014] FJSC 12 CAV0003.2014 (20th August 2014) should now be between 11-20 years imprisonment. Much will depend upon the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, considerations of remorse, early pleas, and finally time spent on remand awaiting trial for the final sentence outcome. The increased tariff represents the denunciation of the courts in the strongest terms.”
[25]	In Aitcheson v State (Supra), it was said: 
	[72] Undoubtedly it has been accepted by the society that rape is the most serious sexual offence that could be committed on a woman. Further it is said that; “A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim; a rapist degrades the very soul of a helpless female.”
[26]	In determining the starting point within the said tariff, the Court of Appeal, in Laisiasa Koroivuki v. State [2013] FJCA 15; AAU 0018 of 2010 (5 March 2013); has formulated the following guiding principles:
	“In selecting a starting point, the court must have regard to an objective seriousness of the offence. No reference should be made to the mitigating and aggravating factors at this time.  As a matter of good practice, the starting point should be picked from the lower or middle range of the tariff.  After adjusting for the mitigating and aggravating factors, the final term should fall within the tariff.  If the final term falls either below or higher than the tariff, then the sentencing court should provide reasons why the sentence is outside the range.”
[27]	In the light of the above guiding principles, and taking into consideration the objective seriousness of the offences, I commence your sentence at 11 years imprisonment for each count of Rape. 
[28]	The aggravating factors are as follows:
	(i)	You are related to the complainant. The complainant is your niece (your brother’s daughter). The complainant’s residence and your residence were in a close proximity to each other at Abaca Settlement, Lautoka. Being so, you should have protected the complainant. Instead you have breached the trust expected from you and the breach was gross.  
(ii)	There was a large disparity in age between you and the complainant. At the time of the incident the complainant was only 10 years of age. At the time you were 40 years of age. Therefore, you were 30 years older than the complainant at the time of the offending and wielded a position of power and authority over the complainant.   
	(iii)	You took advantage of the complainant’s vulnerability, helplessness and naivety and thereby paid no regard to her personal security or privacy.  
	(iv)	You have exposed the innocent mind of a child to sexual activity at such a tender age, and thereby robbed the complainant of her innocence.  
	(v)	This Court finds that your actions were pre-planned. On the day of the incident you saw the complainant going towards the canteen, at which point you enticed her to come into your house, where you perpetrated this offence on her.
	(vi)	The frequent prevalence of the offence of Rape in our society today, especially cases of child Rape. 
[29]	In mitigation you have submitted as follows: 
(i)	That you have fully co-operated with the Police when you were taken in for questioning and subsequently charged for this matter instead of trying to circumvent the course of justice.  
(ii)	That you are remorseful of your actions. 
(iii)	That you entered a guilty plea during the course of these proceedings.  
[30]	Iliesa Tora, you are now 43 years of age (Your date of birth being 5 May 1981). You are said to be a single parent. You have one daughter who is in Year 6. You are a Farmer by occupation. You were said to be residing with your brother’s family at Tavakubu, Lautoka. However, the above are all personal circumstances and cannot be considered as mitigating circumstances.     
[31]	Iliesa Tora, considering the aforementioned aggravating factors, I increase your sentence by a further 5 years. Now your sentence for each count of Rape would be 16 years imprisonment.  
[32]	You cannot be considered as a first offender and as such a person of previous good character. On 4 March 2024, you were convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 years, by His Lordship Justice Aluthge, in the High Court of Lautoka, for three counts of Rape of a child under 13 years of age [High Court Lautoka, Criminal Case No. HAC 121 of 2020].  
[33]	Iliesa Tora, I accept the fact that you fully co-operated with the Police in this matter. However, I cannot accept your show of remorse as being genuine. Accordingly, considering the above mitigating factor of co-operating with the police, I deduct one year from your sentence. Now your sentence for each count of Rape would be 15 years imprisonment.   
[34]	Iliesa Tora, you entered a guilty plea over a year after the Amended Information was filed. Therefore, your guilty plea must be considered as a belated one. Nevertheless, in doing so you saved some of the resources of this Court, instead of proceeding with the matter for trial. More importantly, you saved the complainant from having to give evidence and thereby re-live the incident all over again. For your guilty plea I grant you a further discount of 3 years. Now your sentence for each count of Rape would be 12 years imprisonment.
[35]	In the circumstances, your sentences are as follows:
	Count 1-		Rape contrary to Section 207 (1) and 2(b) and (3) of the Crimes Act – 12 years’ imprisonment.	
	Count 2 – 	Rape contrary to Section 207 (1) and 2(a) and (3) of the Crimes Act – 12 years’ imprisonment.	
	I order that both sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. Therefore, your total term of imprisonment will be 12 years.
[36]	Accordingly, I sentence you to a term of 12 years imprisonment. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act, I fix your non-parole period as 10 years imprisonment. 
[37]	Section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act reads thus: 
	“If an offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, any period of time during which the offender was held in custody prior to the trial of the matter or matters shall, unless a court otherwise orders, be regarded by the court as a period of imprisonment already served by the offender.”
[38]	You were arrested for this case and produced in the Magistrate’s Court of Lautoka, on 18 February 2022, and remanded into custody. You were never granted bail for this case. Thus you have remained in custody since that day. 
[39]	On 4 March 2024, you were convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 years, by the High Court of Lautoka [High Court Lautoka, Criminal Case No. HAC 121 of 2020]. In that case His Lordship Justice Aluthge has given you a discount of 15 months as time spent in remand. 
[40]	Accordingly, for this case, I am considering a period of 24 months as time spent in remand [From 18 February 2022 to 4 March 2024]. The period you have been in custody shall be regarded as period of imprisonment already served by you. I hold that a period of 24 months should be considered as served in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of the Sentencing and Penalties Act. 
[41]	In the result, your final sentence is as follows:
			Head Sentence	-	12 years imprisonment.
			Non-parole period	-	10 years imprisonment.
Considering the time you have spent in remand, the time remaining to be served by you is as follows:
			Head Sentence	-	10 years imprisonment.
			Non-parole period	-	 8 years imprisonment.
[42]	For the avoidance of any doubt, your sentence for this case, will commence from today and be concurrent to the sentence you are serving in High Court Lautoka, Criminal Case No. HAC 121 of 2020.
[43]	You have 30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal if you so wish. 

Riyaz Hamza
JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT LAUTOKA
Dated this 17th Day of May 2024

Solicitors for the State	: 	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Lautoka.
Solicitors for the Accused	: 	Office of the Legal Aid Commission, Lautoka.