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

Regina v Baetalua - Sentence [2013] SBHC 7; HCSI-CRC 260 of 2012 (20 February 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALLARAS J)

CRC No. 260 of 2012

REGINA

v

BAETALUA

Hearing Dates: 11-12 February 2013
Verdict Delivered: 13 February 2013
Sentence Delivered: 20 February 2013

Coram: Pallaras, J.
Crown: Ms S. Ngava
Defence: Mr. S. Aupai

Sentence

1. The accused was convicted of one count of rape as charged in that, on the 8th June 2012, he raped Ms Linda Kahaia (the Complainant) at Kaibia Valley in Honiara.
   
2. The rape occurred in a home owned by the uncle and aunty of the accused at a time when the Complainant was engaged therein as a child minder for their two children.
   
3. The accused entered the house uninvited on the pretext of wanting to watch television but immediately demanded that the Complainant have sexual intercourse with him. At the time and throughout the entire incident he had in his possession a large knife.
   
4. The accused threatened to use the knife on the Complainant if she did not comply with his demands for sex and, as I have found, she succumbed to his demands out of a fear for her own life and safety.
   
5. The accused admitted in evidence that the Complainant had refused his demands for sex but says that this was only in relation to his first request. He said that he asked her again and that she then consented to sex.
   
6. He also conceded that the Complainant was terrified of the knife to such an extent that as soon as she was able to take hold of it after the rape, she ran to the door and hurled it out of the house.
   
7. This evidence by the accused was significant support for the Complainant's evidence that she refused his demands and that she was terrified of the knife. I rejected the accused's claim that he thought that the Complainant had consented to his sexual demands, not least of all because immediately after her rejection of him and before he "asked" her again he proceeded to undress himself to a point where he was naked. It was obvious that irrespective of what the Complainant had said, he was fixed in his determination to have sexual intercourse with her.
   
8. On the evidence, I am unable to say whether this was because he was so drunk as to have not cared what the Complainant's attitude was but certainly there was sufficient evidence even from the accused himself for me to find that he was affected by alcohol at the time of the offence.
   
9. It is conceded by the Defence that the presence of the knife does constitute a serious aggravating feature of this offence. The Complainant has testified as to her terror in being confronted by an alcohol affected, knife wielding man who was demanding sex from her and I have no reason to disbelieve her evidence about that.
   
10. I have previously held that in my view an appropriate starting point in sentencing for a rape committed without any significant aggravating or mitigating circumstances should be higher than that arrived at in the old case of R v Ligiau and Dori[1] and have said that an appropriate starting point in a contested rape trial in those circumstances should be 7 years imprisonment[2].
    
11. I have also previously held that in a conviction for rape after trial where circumstances of aggravation are present that an appropriate starting point should be 8 years imprisonment[3].
    
12. I am conscious that as a first offender, the accused is a young man of previous good character. Although I am prepared to find that his prospects of rehabilitation may be good I have had no evidence whatsoever from the defence on this issue. While I do take these matters personal to the accused into account as much as I can, it is well settled that in cases such as this matters personal to the offender carry less weight than they otherwise might.
    
13. I am also particularly conscious of the imperative to continue to take into account the need for personal and general deterrence in cases where the (generally) more vulnerable members of our community are targeted by offenders who have absolutely no regard for the havoc they wreak by their barbaric behaviour. It is perhaps the most selfish of all criminal offences and often destroys or ruins the enjoyment of life for the victims for years after the crime. It is an offence, which is often characterised by elements of cruelty, fear, selfishness, violence and betrayal. The Courts must play their role in standing firm against it.
    
14. I note that in this case, it is the Defence submission that given the findings of fact that have been made, the starting point for sentencing the offender should be 8 years imprisonment.
    
15. I agree. The offender is sentenced to a period of 8 years imprisonment which period is to start as from 8th June, 2012.
    

THE COURT

^[1] [1985-6] SILR 214
^[2] R v Soni CRC 28 of 2011, Sentence
^[3] R v Supa CRC 76 of 2011, Sentence