Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Regina v Supa [2012] SBHC 110; HCSI-CRC 76 of 2011 (31 August 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALLARAS J)

CRC No. 76 of 2011

R v Peter SUPA

Date of Hearing: 13, 14, 15 & 16th August 2012
Date of Sentence: 31 August 2012

Ms A Driu & Ms T Walenenea for the Prosecution/Crown
Mr B Ifuto'o; instructed by Mr Ed. Cade for the Defendant

Sentence
Pallaras J

[1] On 23rd August 2012, you were convicted of raping Ms Cindy Trevor (the Complainant), a young woman who was a customer of yours at your stall. She had on occasions bought cigarettes and betelnuts from you.

[2] Sometime between midnight on 26th May 2010 and 1 a.m. on the 27th May 2010 after inviting the Complainant and her friend Tuti Wheatley (PW3) to take shelter from the rain inside your stall, you took advantage of the fact that PW3 and a cousin of yours who was also present, Eddie Ramo (PW4), went to buy some beer and breakfast food. This left you alone with the Complainant.

[3] When the others left, despite the protest from the Complainant, you locked the door of your stall on the pretence of preventing members of your family from helping themselves to your goods. You then extinguished the only light, a candle, and forcefully dragged the complainant to a mattress used by you for sleeping.

[4] Being a small woman, the Complainant struggled as best she could to resist your assault but you were too strong for her. You threatened that you would kill her if she made any noise or cried out and at one stage dragged a sharp object, which I find to have been a knife, across a surface threatening to use it against the Complainant.

[5] You clasped your hand firmly on her mouth and face in an attempt to prevent her from calling out while at the same time threatening her life if she did call out. Your threats and violence were successful in terrorising her to the extent that she could not call out. She continued to struggle with you however and in the course of the struggle her shirt was torn.

[6] You forced yourself upon the Complainant, pushing up her shirt, attempting to remove her skirt and succeeding in removing her pants. You had sexual intercourse with her in an aggressive manner and in a way that, according to the medical report (Exhibit P5) was consistent with the soreness and injuries she was found to have by the examination of Dr Jack Siwaianao (PW2).

[7] It was only the return of PW3 and PW4 that eventually led you to stop your attack on the Complainant. The evidence seems to suggest that the sexual activity lasted for an hour or even more. While I make no specific finding of fact on this issue, I am satisfied that your assault on the Complainant was prolonged and sustained. The Complainant must have been in mortal fear for a considerable time.

[8] You were intent on completely intimidating her so that she would not report you for what you had done even to the extent of telling her that you knew where she lived and where she worked and that you could find her and kill her at any time. This was a particularly cruel aspect of your behaviour in that you intended to heap psychological fear on top of the physical assault that you had inflicted upon her.

[9] I find that there were features of aggravation that accompanied the commission of this offence.

[10] First, you locked your door so that she could not escape from your stall. You held her there against her will and so that you could commit the further offence of rape against her.

[11] Secondly, you threatened her with death should she make any noise. You emphasised and exacerbated this threat by the use of a knife which you intended for her to believe you were ready and able to use against her.

[12] Third, you used aggression and force to drag her to your mattress despite the fact that your young child was present somewhere in the room. The fact that you were prepared to commit this offence in the presence of your child and your willingness to use whatever force was necessary for you to achieve your goals is a stark demonstration of how indifferent you were to the pain that you were inflicting upon the Complainant.

[13] It has been put to me on your behalf that there are mitigating factors in this case.

[14] They are said to be that

• You have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation
• You have not committed this offence before
• The offence was not planned and
• The Complainant did not suffer serious injury
  

[15] The prospects of rehabilitation are an essential ingredient in any assessment of a proper sentence. While I take this into account in this case, I am mindful that the same can often be said for all but the worst offenders. When I look to find evidence of the prisoner's remorse and acceptance of his responsibility for his crime, I struggle to find any. When I look to his antecedents as a guide to his prospects of rehabilitation, I find a long record of dishonesty extending over a decade of offending. When asked by the Court for an explanation of this extended criminal behaviour by the prisoner, Defence counsel's submission essentially was that the prisoner kept bad company.

[16] While the prisoner is not to be further punished for his antecedents, he cannot benefit from the submission that he was otherwise of good character.

[17] I reject the submission that the fact that this is the first time the prisoner has committed rape should be seen as a factor in mitigation of this offence. It may prevent the imposition of a condign punishment that might be delivered on a man who has committed rape on more than one occasion, but it cannot serve to lessen the criminality of the offending that has been proven against the prisoner.

[18] I accept the submission that the offence was not planned – at least in the sense that this was an opportunistic crime. However, once again, while pre-planning may have aggravated the offence, the lack of it does not lessen the offence.

[19] I reject the submission that the fact that the Complainant did not suffer serious injury, mitigates the offence. The crime of rape is complete when the rapist has sexual intercourse with his victim without her consent. If he causes her serious physical injury he can expect that the crime will be treated as aggravated by a sentencing court. If his aggression has not caused his victim to be seriously injured then the best that can be said for him is that he is fortunate.

[20] This submission also totally ignores the psychological damage that such an invasion of a woman can cause. These courts often see and hear the effects of such offending illustrated by victims suffering nightmares, psychological trauma, feelings of degradation, anger, distrust of others especially other males and much worse. While I make no such findings in this case I cite them to amplify the shallowness and insensitivity of such a submission.

[21] Counsel have helpfully provided me with a number of authorities which, in the main, serve to indicate the wide sentencing range in cases involving sexual offences. The offence of rape carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, which undoubtedly demonstrates that the offence is considered by the community and the courts to be one of the most serious of all crimes.

[22] Courts have a clear duty when sentencing in such cases to reflect the clear intent of the legislation and sentence in a manner that this community would expect. Its prevalence in the community must not be allowed to desensitise community reaction to it – it must do the opposite, and the Courts must play their part.

[23] In the case of Ligiau&Dori[1], His Lordship Ward CJ adopted the views of Lord Lane in R V Billam as a guiding principle in considering tariff in the offence of rape. In that case it was said that the starting point for rape committed by an adult without any aggravating or mitigating features, a figure of 5 years should be taken as the starting point in a contested case.

[24] Where rape is committed by a person who is in a position of responsibility towards the victim, the starting point should be 8 years. The crime should be treated as aggravated where any of the following factors are present: (1) violence is used over and above the force necessary to commit the rape; (2) a weapon is used to frighten or wound the victim; (3) the rape is repeated; (4) the rape has been carefully planned; (5) the defendant has previous convictions for rape or other serious offences of a violent or sexual kind; (6) the victim is subjected to further sexual indignities or perversions; (7) the victim is either very old or very young; (8) the effect upon the victim, whether physical or mental, is of special seriousness. Where any one or more of these aggravating features are present, the figure should be substantially higher than the figure suggested as the starting point.

[25] In the present contested case, the significant features of aggravation mentioned call for a higher starting point than 5 years. I particularly regard the use of a knife and the threat to kill the Complainant with it as features of significant aggravation. The attack was prolonged and violent and carried out in a way that made the Complainant feel particularly vulnerable, helpless and in fear of her life. She was locked inside your house with no way of escape and in the knowledge that if she cried out or called for help you had threatened to kill her.

[26] In my judgement, an appropriate starting point is 8 years imprisonment. I am unable to find any feature of mitigation significant enough to mitigate this sentence.

[27] It is the Order of this Court that you be imprisoned for 8 years with the time you have already spent in custody being taken into account.

THE COURT

^[1][1985-1986] S 7LR 214