Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Nauru

Republic v Olsson [1984] NRSC 2; [1980-1989] NLR (13 June 1984)

[1980-1989] NLR
[Ed – No page no. in original]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

Criminal Case No. 2 of 1983

THE REPUBLIC

-v-

KENNEDY OLSSON

JUDGMENT

The accused is convicted of the crime of attempted rape contrary to S.349 of the Criminal Code of Queensland 1899, as in force in Nauru.

Reasons for Sentence:

Any occasion of attempted rape is serious. Often it will not be possible to prove such a crime. That offence is clearly contrary to certain fundament freedoms protected by Article 3 of the Constitution of Nauru - the security of the person, and respect for her private life. Society for its own protection must ensure that those freedoms are jealously guarded.

Attempted rape involves a trespass to the person, and very often serious assault. In this case force was used when Miss Ho was pulled by her hair, when pressure was applied to her neck when she screamed for help, and when she received some bruises. The accused was armed with a knife. It is fortuitous that Miss Ho's cries for help were heard and answered by two persons who came to enquire. Only then did the accused desist and make off.

As well as the physical hurt, which in this case would wave have healed quite quickly, there is the mental and psychological harm. After being subjected to this type of assault many women will live in fear for a long, long time. In this case it is to be hoped that Miss Ho has recovered and will be able to lead a normal life. There is nothing to suggest otherwise. But the potentially serious effects on a woman who is subjected to this crime, must be considered.

In the present case there are personal factors of the accused that are important.

He is a young man just 21 years of age. Although he has a few previous convictions, none are for sexual offences, and none involve the use of force. They are for comparatively minor offences and may properly be disregarded.

He has admitted the offence, and I accept from his unsworn voluntary statement, that he is genuinely remorseful. He has asked for the community’s forgiveness through the Court. I think he has learned his lesson.

He is entitled to credit for those factors, which are to be taken into account on sentencing by way of reduction of penalty.

I am advised that he has not always had a happy home life, that from time to time there have been differences of opinion between him and his father. In view of the gravity of this offence, a prison sentence is unavoidable, but I express the hope that when this young man has paid his penalty, his family will be prepared to give him the support and encouragement he will need to make a fresh start in life.

I consider that a sentence of not less than 2 ½ years imprisonment would normally be appropriate for an attempt as an armed intruder to rape a woman in the privacy of her own home in the middle of the night. Perhaps a longer sentence would be called for if the woman was seriously affected. On the other hand when the accused is given credit for those factors I have mentioned, a sentence of 21 months imprisonment is sufficient to meet the interests of society, and the ends of justice.

The accused is sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment with hard labour.

H. GILBERT
CHIEF JUSTICE

13th June, 1984.