Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

  Download original PDF

State v Seutinaviti - Sentence [2025] FJHC 545; HAC121.2025 (28 August 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL CASE NO: HAC 121 OF 2025

STATE

V

MANOA SEUTINAVITI

Date of Hearing: 14 August 2025
Date of Judgment: 20 August 2025
Sentence Hearing: 27 August 2025
Date of Sentence: 28 August 2025

Counsel: Ms U Ratukalou and Mr J Singh for the State
Mr A Prasad and Ms S Mocenavaga for the Accused

SENTENCING REMARKS

[1] The offender has been tried and convicted of the digital rape of a 14-year-old male (the victim).

Facts of the Case

[2] On 8 April 2025, the victim accompanied his aunt to collect breadfruit from an informal settlement in Samabula, where the offender resided. Upon arrival at the offender’s compound, the victim’s aunt called out for permission to pass through. The offender emerged and, upon learning the purpose of their visit, informed them that breadfruit was out of season and instead offered cassava from his plantation.

[3] The aunt reluctantly accepted the offer. The offender then went inside his house, changed clothes, and returned with a cane knife and a sack. The victim accompanied him to the plantation, while the aunt returned home to charge her phone. After pulling cassava from the ground, the offender placed the cane knife against the victim’s neck and ordered him to enter his house. Out of fear, the victim complied.

[4] Inside the house, the offender pulled down his pants and forced the victim to perform oral sex on him. During the assault, the cane knife remained beside the offender on the bed.

[5] The assault was interrupted when the victim’s aunt returned and looked through the doorway. She saw the offender naked from the waist down, with the victim kneeling and facing him. She shouted, distracting the offender. The victim seized the opportunity to escape and ran to his aunt for safety. The offender, still partially undressed, came to the door and insisted that the victim finish what he was doing. Both the victim and his aunt fled and reported the incident to police.

[6] The offender claimed that the child victim made a sexual advance, and that the allegation was fabricated after he rejected it. The Court found this account implausible.

Legal Considerations

[7] Rape is a grave offence. Regardless of the nature of penetration, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The primary consideration is the impact of rape on the victim.

Aggravating factors

[8] In this case, the victim was timid and vulnerable. The offender exploited this vulnerability, using a dangerous weapon to coerce the victim into submission. The 52-year age gap between the offender and the victim, the use of a cane knife, and the offender’s continued sexual aggression even after being interrupted are serious aggravating factors.

Sentencing Objectives

[9] The sentence must reflect the need to denounce the crime and deter both the offender and others with similar tendencies. These objectives are paramount in cases involving the rape of a child.

Mitigating factors

[10] The offender is 66 years old, separated from his spouse and has grown up children. He works as a security guard and lives alone. His age and personal circumstances offer minimal mitigating value. The only mitigating factor of significance is his previous good character.

[11] Sentencing Calculation

• Base tariff for child rape (lower end): 11 years as starting point
• Aggravating factors: +3 years
• Mitigating factors and remand period (5 months): −2 years
  

Final Sentence

[12] The offender is sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years.

....................................................
Hon Mr Justice Daniel Goundar
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Legal Aid Commission for the Accused