N10663

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1463 OF 2022

THE STATE

V

KENDY FEGO

Waigani: Miviri J
2024	: 09th & 21st February

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – First Count Persistent Sexual abuse S229D (1) & (6) CCA – Sexual Penetration S229A (1) & (2) CCA – Sexual Touching S 229B (1)(a) & (4) CCA – Indecent Act Directed at A Child S229C (1) & (2) CCA – Plea – 40 Year Old Man – Victims 10, 8, 8 , 6 years old – Repeat Offences – Medical Reports Injuries to Vagina – Protection of Children – First Offender 40-year-Old – Guilty Pleas – Whether Cumulative or Concurrent Sentences – Totality of Sentence – Strong Deterrent Punitive Sentence 

Facts
Prisoner a grown man acted sexually to four girls under the age of 12 years old. He sexually penetrated one, sexually touched them, and directed indecent acts at another.
Held
Guilty Plea
Perpetrated on Innocent & tender aged children.
Breach of Trust Dependency Authority.
Protection of young children.
Cumulative Sentence
Strong Deterrent Punitive Sentence.

Cases Cited:
Kerua and Kerua, Public Prosecutor v [1985] PNGLR 85
Mase and John v The State [1991] PNGLR 88
State v Kepas [2007] PGNC 77; N3192
State v Tigi (No.2) [2013] PGNC 116; N5310
State v JB [2007] PGNC 66; N3224
State v Tubavai [2016] PGNC 380; N6624
Tardrew, Public Prosecutor [1986] PNGLR 91
State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913 
Sabiu v State [2007] PGSC 24; SC866
Koribiseni v State [2022] PGSC 90; SC2296
Hindemba v The State [1998] PGSC 48; SC593
Aubuku v The State [1987] PNGLR 267
Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193
Yalibakut v State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890
Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653
Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38
Kumbamong v State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017

Counsel:
S. Patatie, for the State
T. Yapao, for the Defendant

SENTENCE

21st February 2024
1.	MIVIRI J: This is the sentence of one Kendy Fego who pleaded guilty to four counts, first count, persistent sexual abuse of a child under section 229D (1) and (6). Second Count of sexual Penetration of a child under section 229A (1) and (2), third count of sexual touching under section 229B (1) (b) and (4), and fourth Count, Indecent Acts directed at a Child under section 229C (1) and (2), all of the Criminal Code Act.

2.	The charges were in the following order against the Criminal Code in each case reading; “First Count : That he between 01st of February 2021 to 01st of April 2021 at Bodium Number 2, 6 mile, Port Moresby on two or more occasions engaged in conduct amounting to an offence against Division IV.2A (Sexual Offences Against Children) of the Criminal Code with Angela Saku, the times and conduct being specified in the Schedule, contrary to section 229D (1) and (6) of the Criminal Code.

3.	Count 2: That he between 01st of February 2021 to 01st of April 2021 at Bodium Number 2, 6 mile, Port Moresby engaged in an act of sexual penetration with Lucy Lovi, a child under the age of 16 years, being aged at that time 8 years old in that he introduced his fingers into the vagina of that child contrary to section 229A (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.

4.	Count 3: That he between 01st of February 2021 to 01st of April 2021 at Bodium Number 2, 6-mile, Port Moresby for sexual purposes touched with his fingers the vagina of Singa Toby a child under the age of 16 years old, being aged 6 years old, contrary to section 229B (1) and (4) of the Criminal Code.

5.	Count 4: That he between 01st of February 2021 to 01st of April 2021 at Bodium Number 2, 6 mile, Port Moresby committed an indecent act directed at Florence Sebastian, a child under the age of 16 years, being aged at that time 8 years old, in that he took his penis out while his other clothes were on him and showed it to the complainant, contrary to section 229C (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code.”
6.	The facts on arraignment are that the accused aged 37 years old lived at the same area Bodium Number 2, 6-mile Port Moresby with the complainants, Angela Saku, Lucy Lovi, Singa Toby and Florence Sebastian. 

7.	On a date unspecified between 01st February 2021 to 01st April 2021, accused sexually penetrated Angela then 10 years old by inserting his penis into her vagina. Yet on another occasion between the said dates, he led Angela into his house, took her into his room, took out his penis and told her to suck it. She said No and refused, but he pushed his penis into her mouth, when he was done, he told her to leave. Again, on Wednesday 31st March 2021 whilst Angela was playing, he pulled her hand and led her into his room where he removed her pants and touched her vagina with his penis.

8.	Further that he on between the said dates when Lucy Lovi who was 8 years old went to his house, together with her friends and watched a movie on his phone, whilst watching he inserted his finger into Lucy’s vagina. Then he removed his hand and switched off the phone and asked them to leave.

9.	Further that he on unspecified dates between 01st February and the 1st of April 2021, he took Singa Toby who was 6 years old with her friend to the top of the hill where the containers were. He took Singa and Florence away from the others and put his hands into Singa’s pants and touched her vagina.

10.	Further that he on an unspecified date between the 01st February 2021 and the 01st April 2021 took Florence Sebastian who was 8 years old and others to the hill where the Containers were. There he stood at her back pulled down his pants while his shirt was on and showed his penis to her. She felt it was improper and left.

11.	The matter came to light when Angela reported the matter to her aunt Rose Banson. It was reported to police and the Prisoner was arrested and charged. The Prisoner penetrated the vagina of Angela on two occasions and for sexual purposes he touched her vagina. His actions were unlawful and contravened Section 229D (1) and (6) of the Criminal Code.

12.	And when he inserted his fingers into the vagina of Lucy Lovi his actions were unlawful contravening section 229B (1) (b) and (4) of the Criminal Code.

13.	And when he showed his penis to Florence Sebastian his actions were unlawful contravening section 229C (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code. 

14.	All four counts were committed during the same period of time between the 1st of February 2021 and 01st April 2021 on dates unknown between on the four complainants separately. By that fact they are not of the same transaction. Because their commission is over that period but on different dates and times and against different victims. The sentences will be cumulative as opposed to concurrent in respectively. 

15.	He pleaded guilty to each of the Charges preferred. Section 229D (1) and (6) persistent sexual abuse entailed imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years. But if subsection (6) was invoked and the offence involved an act of penetration, life imprisonment was the maximum due. In the case of section 229A if the child was under 16 years old imprisonment for a term not exceeding 25 years. But if the child was under 12 years old and there was existing relationship of trust authority and dependency an imprisonment term of life. And in the case of section 229B (1)(a) and (4) imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. But if the child was under 12 years old and there was existing relationship of trust authority and dependency, he was liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 years. In the case of section 229C (1) and (2) imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. But if the child was under the age of 12 years and there was an existing relationship of trust authority and dependency, imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

16.	The first Count of persistent Sexual abuse of a child Angela Saku, the times and conduct being specified in the Schedule, contrary to section 229D (1) and (6) of the Criminal Code. There are two acts of penetration, the first in the vagina, and the second in the mouth, and the third when he touched her vagina with his penis on the 31st March 2021. All are separate and distinct offences committed time and dates apart. But in the way that the charge is set out in the Indictment will be treated as one transaction constituting the offence of persistent sexual abuse. That is the distinction that will set them apart considering, Kerua and Kerua, Public Prosecutor v [1985] PNGLR 85. Whatever sentence is meted out will be cumulative to the other counts set out. And what is proportionate will come after consideration of the totality principles, Mase and John v The State [1991] PNGLR 88 where armed robbery abduction and rape was considered whether individual sentences were appropriate or cumulative and the totality principle’.

17.	Comparably this is not the first time that this offence of persistent Sexual abuse pursuant to section 229D has come before the Courts. In an earlier case State v Kepas [2007] PGNC 77; N3192 (21 March 2007) returned the sentence of 12 years against the prisoner. He was a 60-year-old man who committed five instances of sexual touching and one of sexual penetration. Like here, he also pleaded guilty to the charges. In State v Tigi (No.2) [2013] PGNC 116; N5310 (24 July 2013) prisoner was sentenced after trial on sexual touching, and sexual penetration of the vagina and using fingers and penis many times over a span of one year three months by a 61-year-old prisoner against a 12 years old, to 13 years imprisonment. In State v JB [2007] PGNC 66; N3224 (20 September 2007) there were two counts of persistent sexual abuse against two victims on a guilty plea, drew 10 years on the first count and 16 years on the second, cumulative giving 26 years imprisonment, but was reduced on totality to 20 years imprisonment. It was an aggravated case involving father of the victims, one 15 years old and the other 17 years old who committed these acts on them over a period. Aggravated was the fact that there was serious breach of trust authority and dependency. In State v Tubavai [2016] PGNC 380; N6624 (19 August 2016), the same offence committed by a 35-year male on a 14-year-old girl drew a head sentence of 10 years imprisonment with part suspension. Suspension of sentences is invariable particularly in the light of Tardrew, Public Prosecutor [1986] PNGLR 91. In my view there is nothing of extenuating circumstance in the presentence report presented of the 23rd June 2023 to impose other than a custodial term upon the prisoner: State v Hagei [2005] PGNC 60; N2913 (21 September 2005). That report with the persons interviewed within ask for a custodial term. Even blood relative of the prisoner interviewed Dicks Waiga cousin brother stated: “That what the offender did was disgraceful to the same ethnic group where they know each other, and he wanted the offender to be imprisoned so that he can learn his lesson.” This is how serious the offences are.

18.	In Sabiu v State [2007] PGSC 24; SC866 (27 June 2007) appellant was convicted of sexual penetration of a child under 12 years old pursuant to section 229A (2) of the Criminal Code. He appealed against his sentence of 17 years imposed. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence was confirmed. That was anal sex of a 6-year-old nephew by the uncle, appellant. In Koribiseni v State [2022] PGSC 90; SC2296 (25 August 2022) sexual penetration of a minor pursuant to section 229A (1) and (3) drew 15 years imprisonment for one offence, and 7 years imprisonment for another both to be served cumulatively. Supreme Court upheld the review and substituted 13 years as appropriate. It was digital penetration against two pupils of the Elementary School where the prisoner taught. Because they were committed with a short space over the same period it was considered concurrently to be served.

19.	Comparatively in this sense even before the amendments to the criminal code is Hindemba v The State [1998] PGSC 48; SC593 (27 October 1998). Ten (10) years IHL was increased by the Supreme court to 15 years on the appeal against sentence by the appellant/prisoner. That was a crime of rape. She was a young schoolgirl who was with others in her age separated from the others by his violence and despite her sister standing up for her, he persisted and committed the offence in broad day light. Which are very serious and aggravating features viewed within Aubuku v The State [1987] PNGLR 267. A policeman committed rape of the female suspect in police custody at the police station. It is my view that the factors to be considered in the determination of an appropriate sentence set out in that case are relevant here. I am mindful also that this is a case of sexual offences against Children, not adults and therefore in that regard have special status to be considered because of the specific amendment that was targeted at these offences. Unto it is the fact that it is a specific code that addresses all manner of sexual conduct that is directed at Children who in my view, have special standing because of their youthfulness and innocence. They must be protected from men, boys, and other persons, and from themselves.

20.	Given I consider that an appropriate and proportionate sentence for the first count of persistent sexual abuse, committed by the prisoner on the complainant Angela Saku who was 10 years old, committed between the 1st February 2021 and the 01st April 2021 at Bodium No. 2, would be 15 years imprisonment IHL. And I so impose that sentence upon him. It will be served cumulatively with the sentences for the other three convictions.

21.	In respect of the sentence in the case of count 2 against Lucy Lovi who was 8 years old when he went to his house, together with her and her friends watched a movie on his phone, whilst watching he inserted his finger into Lucy’s vagina. That is an offence against 229A (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code drawing in his case the maximum term of life imprisonment. Again, that would draw that sentence if it were determined as the worst offence of sexual penetration of a minor under 12 years coupled with the fact that there was an existing relationship of trust authority and dependency. I have viewed in detail the facts and the circumstances and hold that this would be slightly higher because of the age of the complainant. She is 8 years old. He is 37 years old. That is a gap of 29 years difference. It was digital penetration into the vagina. There is injury in the vagina stated in the medical report prepared by HEO Solange Haputo dated the 01st April 2021. It shows, “Genitalia looked inflamed with a laceration about a centimetre at 1.0’clock and at 11. 0’clock of the Labia Minora.”

22.	 By his guilty plea he has saved this young child the trauma of reliving that in court under the hearing and views of all. These are in favour of the prisoner which I consider will be reflected in his sentence. But the fact of the matter is that this by itself was a well-planned offence. He lured her with the adult movie on his mobile telephone, which was produced to the young child, during which he committed the offence. As can be seen the younger the child, coupled with the level of trust authority and dependency, the sentence will increase. Here it is aggravated further by the injuries to her vagina depicted by the Health Extension Officer’s medical report set out above. As can be seen by the actions of the parents who resorted to fighting the prisoner, it is a serious offence. It is not acceptable in any form in the community and society. It draws abhorrence and immediate down trod to law and order. It must be stamped out. It is a specific amendment targeted at the prevalence and escalation of this offence. It will not be tolerated, and the law must be accorded its place. Here is a sentence that will reflect this fact but for the guilty plea. And that the offender is a first-time offender. But he is real danger to young children. He must be shown that his conduct is not accepted and must meet with what the law has prescribed. The fair, just, and proportionate, sentence given for count 2 sexual penetration of a minor under 12 years pursuant to 229A (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code is 19 years imprisonment in hard labour. And I so impose that upon the prisoner forthwith. I do so particularly considering that he is a first time offender who has pleaded guilty to the charge. I would have given him 25 years had it not being for that fact. I order it to be served cumulatively with the sentences for the other three offences forthwith.

23.	In respect of count 3 for sexual purposes touched with his fingers the vagina of Singa Toby a child under the age of 16 years old, being aged 6-year-old, contrary to section 229B (1) and (4) of the Criminal Code that is a maximum sentence of twelve years old upon him. She is 6 years old, a child under 12 years old and there is an existing relationship of trust authority and dependency. He takes her away from any help that will stop what he is doing up to a hill where the containers are. Singa Toby was at his mercy to do as he pleased. She was in no position to offer resistance. This law is intended to protect her from persons likened to the prisoner. It is intended to protect any young child out there in similar set of circumstances. Here the Medical report produced by HEO Solange Haputo dated the 1st April 2021, Family Support Centre shows, “On Genital examination: It looked inflamed with per vaginal discharges present.” That is independent corroboration of the account depicted out by the child. It means physical trauma evident in a 6-year-old child, who has no knowledge nor part in sexual intercourse. Or as here consent to digital insertion by the prisoner. The age gap is 31 years apart. He is a fatherly figure and she trusted him to get to the top of that hill where the containers were. In my view the sentence must be proportionate and fit the crime. By what I have set out above, I determine that a fair and just penalty upon the prisoner for the offence pursuant to section 229B (1) and (4) of the Criminal Code for sexual purposes touched with his fingers the vagina of Singa Toby, a child under the age of 16 years old, being aged 6 years old is 5 years imprisonment IHL. I am minded imposing that in view of his guilty plea and that he is a first time offender. The circumstances of aggravation far outweigh and so the penalty accorded. It will be served cumulatively with the other three counts here.

24.	In respect of count 4 in that he committed an indecent act directed at Florence Sebastian, a child under the age of 16 years, being aged at that time 8 years old, in that he took his penis out while his other clothes were on him and showed it to the complainant, contrary to section 229C (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty that can be imposed upon him for that conviction is imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. Because there is existing relationship of trust authority and dependency here. And further there is age gap of 29 years, she is 8 years old and he a 37-year-old man. I determine and adopt what is set out above that a fair just and proportionate sentence in his case for the conviction would be taking due account that he is a first time offender and that he has pleaded guilty would be, 5 years imprisonment IHL. She depicts by the medical report prepared dated the 01st April 2021 from the Family Support Centre by HEO Dianne Asen, “On Genital Examination: Hymen Discontinued, vulva redish, Laceration noted at 9.0’clock of the labia majora.” This is not a sexually active child. This is a 6-year-old who does not know an iota about sex and what it has to do between a man and a woman, let alone a girl, tender 6-year-old. This is an offence where to go any lower than 5 years would be an affront to the facts and circumstances depicted here. Especially of a grown mature man taking advantage of a helpless young child of 6 years at his discretion and mercy to do as he pleases. To inflict the injury, he does set out above. No men or anyone for that matter has a right to treat a child or children in this way. The punishment must meet the offence proportionate fair and just. 

25.	In my view given all I have set out above, 5 years imprisonment for count 4 contrary to section 229C (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code is fair and just because he not only showed his penis to her, but that he attempted insertion of her vagina as depicted by the medical evidence. That is clear from the medical evidence. The situation witnessed in Kalabus v The State [1988-89] PNGLR 193 must be avoided. He had a prior conviction for attempted rape. He came out after service of that term raped a 9-year-old girl who bled to her death from injuries associated. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. That is the extreme of this behaviour. It must be stopped by strong deterrent and punitive sentences. Given all set out above that is the case here and must be accorded the prisoner. And because of that fact this sentence would be cumulative with the other sentences accorded in the other three convictions set out above.

26.	In my view when a guilty plea as here is taken it is a first step by the prisoner that he accepts his wrong against the complainant and society. He will be accorded that benefit in the sentence that is passed upon him, Yalibakut v State [2006] PGSC 27; SC890 (27 April 2006). His sentence will draw directly from the facts that he has pleaded guilty to. And here relevantly these are set out in detail above. And the worst offence of persistent sexual abuse will draw the maximum sentence of life imprisonment: Golu v The State [1979] PNGLR 653. I determine that each of the respective counts guilty pleas entered and confirmed are most serious offences individually and totally against each young child. Here namely against Angela Saku, Lucy Lovy, Singa Toby and Florence Sebastian. All have rights that must be protected in the same way he has his rights. Because the intent of the People through their legislature against persons like the prisoner must not be defeated in the sentence. The protection of the child from men and persons with like behaviour as the prisoner must be stopped outright. And that children must also be protected from themselves if they are also allowing the offence to take place. 

27.	Because in the case of female children, there is the issue of premature conception which is fatal to the life of the child. The phycological trauma associated cannot be downplayed. It is important that the child is not subjected to violence in this way and made to live with that fact in his or her life. Vulnerability of the child is denoted out by the age demarcating here notable a ten-year-old, two eight (8) year olds, and a 6-year-old. That compound the offence against the prisoner. There are repeated acts, not on one alone but four girls all together over separate times and days, so the sentence will not be one that will fit all, but against all individually spread to accommodate, and the ease of the load will be by totality upon the prisoner: State v JB (supra)

28.	He is an adult mature man aged 37 years old at the time of the commission of the offence, now 40 years old at this sentence hearing. A married man with three children that he has now left with his wife who has left him to remarry. That is a fact which does not justify the commission of these offences. He had a wife to resort to satisfy his sexual urges. He had children of his own who deserved respect care and love as the complainants. They are very young children depicted by the 3 photographs of themselves showing the scene of their assaults.  He took advantage of the innocence of the girls to commit these offences. Very tender aged children of 10, 8, 8, and 6 years old. In that age they are not expected to know anything about sex and what it is. He introduced it to them for his lust and gratification. He is 37 years old a huge age gap and difference of in the first of 27 years apart, 29 years in the second, and third situation, and 31 in the last year. It is a huge difference in age in all four cases. He is in a fatherly position as each of the girls trust him and depend on him when he takes them as he does. He has abused it by his conduct in violating each sexually. 

29.	I do not have the benefit of a psychological report on each of the girls, but have the benefit of victim impact statements dated the 19th May 2023, from Mamu Toby mother of the victim, Singa Toby. She states in effect that the victim does not walk around freely now. She has stopped playing with friends and often follows the mother. It stopped with custody of the prisoner. And the family of the prisoner often have things to say against them.

30.	Angela Saku also has a victim impact statement dated the same 19th May 2023. She states, “After the offender did those bad things to me I felt sick, my skin was hot and my tummy hurt badly. When I was taken to the hospital, they had to check my vagina and I felt embarrassed when they did. We then went to the police and they sent the offender to jail. Later we went home, other children wanted to play with me, but I didn’t want to play with them because I was ashamed of what the man (offender) did to me. I don’t like hearing what happened. I want the offender to stay in jail for a long time because I don’t want to see him again. I pray the honourable Court will do justice and give proper punishment to the Accused for this offence.”

31.	The victim impact statement also dated the 19th May 2023 of Koko Saku mother of victim Angela Saku is in similar terms and that others talk about what happened to her daughter. Because her daughter is the first and only one and it is not easy hearing. She also wants the imprisonment of the offender to be long.

32.	The victim impact statement of Tiri Lovi mother of the victim, Lucy Lovi attests, “Since the incident was reported, I observed my daughter does not talk as much, She just stays in the house. She does not even talk to me too, she usually stays with my parents. She did not eat as much as she used to, she will just eat a little bit and go to sleep. At times she would not even eat her food. She wasn’t as playful and did not play with her friends or her sisters anymore. On behalf of my daughter and I, we both want the offender to go and stay in jail for a long time because of what he did to my daughter. Lucy is my first-born daughter.” 

33.	These when weighed with his character reference by Acting Chaplain Corporal Greg Teine dated the 10th August 2022 at the Bomana Corrective Institution of the prisoner, will not imping seriously on the sentence due the prisoner. The reference is two years old. It is not established if indeed that is the position of recent.  It is not current to depict the conduct of the prisoner. But each of the victim impact statements are of last year May 2023. In my view they depict the way each of the victims are after the offences upon them by the prisoner. None of them are positive but negative after the offence by the prisoner. They are relevant considerations that will entail in the sentence that is eventually passed him. In my view they outweigh the reference of the Prisoner issued by the Chaplain set out above. 

34.	Prisoner is a first offender aged 37 years old at the time of the commission of the offences. Originally from Kimi village Okapa District Eastern Highlands Province. He is educated to grade 8 level at the Lufa Secondary School. He is married and has three children of his own living together in a semi-permanent accommodation. He is the second born in a family of 3 girls and 2 boys. He is survived by his own mother. His wife originally from Oro Province has left him and got married to another. He was employed with Guard Dog Security Unit for a year and left the job. These are the relevant details personal to the prisoner in the Presentence report that was filed into Court 23rd June 2023 as ordered. The recommendation in the report is a prison sentence, other than a non-custodial term. He has spent 2 years 8 months in custody awaiting trial. That would be deducted from the head sentence. And he will serve the balance.

35.	I have no doubts in my mind that this offence will draw nothing less than a strong and determined custodial sentence against the offender. And that each sentence imposed on each individual complainant will be distinct and separate one from the other and will be cumulative as opposed to concurrent. And I hold this view following Kerua and Kerua, Public Prosecutor (supra), and Mase and John v The State (supra). Again, this is a guilty plea to all charges preferred against four separate children by an adult male. The sentences come out from each individual offence. They will not be subdued submerged under another imposed. Each must face the consequences and the penalty prescribed by law. It is evident that these are very well-planned offences because of the way the offences are each committed. Each complainant is enticed and set apart left to the discretion of the prisoner to execute as he does. There is no offer against of resistance depicted.  

36.	I consider it settled at the outset that sentencing discretion is not tied to a mathematical formula, but each case will draw its own sentence by its own facts and circumstance: Lawrence Simbe v The State [1994] PNGLR 38. And to religiously adhere strictly to guidelines and range would be equivalent to legislating, which is not the prerogative of the courts: Kumbamong v State [2008] PGSC 51; SC1017 (29th September 2008). And in each case the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence depicted out by its facts and circumstances. And it is trite that the worst case attracts the maximum penalty: Goli Golu (supra). And it makes sense in the light of Kalabus (supra) which is one of the worst cases of sexual perversion leading to death of a nine (9) year old girl. It is the extreme warranting the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for murder. Here it is particularly serious, because the offences are committed at different times, places, and against different victims. The sentence must take account of all, and at the same time be not crushing on the prisoner. By the same protection of children and vulnerability of society must be prime. 

37.	As I have determined each sentence from each conviction will be cumulative to the next. And the difference will be in the period deducted on totality. The first count is 15 years imprisonment IHL for the conviction of persistent sexual abuse pursuant to section 229D (1) and (6) of the Criminal Code.

38.	For the conviction on the second count of sexual penetration of a minor under 16 years old pursuant to section 229A (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code Act, the prisoner is sentenced to 19 years imprisonment IHL.

39.	For the conviction on the third Count of sexual Touching pursuant to section 229B (1) (b) and (4) of the Criminal Code Act, the prisoner is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment IHL.

40.	For the conviction on the fourth count of an indecent Act directed at Florence Sebastian who was under 16 years old contrary to section 229C (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, the prisoner is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment IHL.

41.	All sentences will be served cumulatively effectively he is sentenced to 44 years imprisonment IHL. By itself that is excessive, and disproportion given the principles of total set out above. Therefore, in the exercise of my discretion pursuant taking account that he has pleaded guilty as a first time offender, I deduct 14 years from the head sentence imposed. Effectively he will serve the balance of 30 years IHL in prison.

Ordered Accordingly.

_____________________________________________________________
Public Prosecutor:  Lawyer for the State	
Public Solicitor   : Lawyer for the Prisoner