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

Regina v Sade [2016] SBHC 137; HCSI-CRC 647 of 2015 (12 August 2016)

REGINA –V- SHADRACK SADE

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua DCJ)

Criminal Jurisdiction

Criminal Case No. 647 of 2015

Hearing: 10, 11 August 2016
Sentence: 12 August 2016

Ms Sirepu Ramosaea for the Crown
Mr. Douglas Hou for the Accused

SENTENCE

The accused is Shadrack Sade. He is charged with one count of defilement under section 142 (1) of the Penal Code. The victim was eleven years old when the accused had sexual intercourse with her on 3 October 2009. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge when he was arraigned on 10 August 2016.

At the date of offending the accused and his wife stayed at Malo village in 2008. They had their own house and the victim was staying with them. The accused was a teacher at the Malo Primary School. The victim was in grade 5 at that school in 2008. The accused was the victim’s class teacher in 2008.

On 3 October 2008 the wife of the accused was not at the house. The accused told the victim to go into the bedroom. The victim went into the bedroom. He followed her and had sexual intercourse with her. He came out of the bedroom after wards.

The elder sister of the victim saw the accused coming out of the bedroom. She suspected that the accused might have done something wrong with the victim. She told their mother to call the victim to return to them. The victim returned to her parents’ house where she told her parents that the accused had sexual intercourse with her.

The victim was born on 10 February 1996. She was under thirteen years of age when the offending occurred. The investigation of the case was fully completed in 2008 and the accused was charged. The accused admitted the offence to the police in 2008. The information against the accused was filed in 25 November 2014 after he was committed for trial at the High Court on 17 September 2015.

A medical doctor carried out a physical examination of the external genitalia of the victim. The victim had venereal infection. There was no hymen, lacerations or scars seen. The source of the infection was unknown. The medical findings were consistent with the victim having had sexual intercourse on numerous occasions.

The prosecution submitted that there are several aggravating features in this case. They are that: the victim had been living with the accused and his wife since the victim was 8 years old; the incident occurred in his family home, inside the victim’s bedroom which supposed to be the safest place for any child; since the accused was a qualified professional teacher, he brought disrepute to the teaching profession and a breach of trust; there was disparity of 21 years between the ages of the accused and the victim, as the accused was 32 years at the date of the offending.

In response the defence agreed that the victim was very young as she was aged 12 years old at the date of the offending, and that the accused occupied a position of responsibility towards the victim; that the victim was very young; but there was no evidence that the victim had suffered any physical or mental condition as a result of the offence. The defence therefore submitted that the appropriate starting point for sentence would be 10 years.

For mitigation, counsel stated that the accused was a first offender; the accused admitted the offence thus assisted the police investigation; the accused was remorseful for the offending against the victim; his admission of the offence saved the victim from the distress of reliving the trauma from the witness box; he paid a compensation of $1,000.00 to the parents of the victim; there was reconciliation between the family members of the accused and the victim which cost $8,000.00. The accused himself contributed $5,000.00 to that amount; Further, the accused himself contributed 2 pigs towards that reconciliation; after this incident the accused took up religious studies and is now a serving clergy man. He was serving in his region when his trial and conviction occurred.

The prosecution in their closing address urged the court to impose a deterrent sentence on the accused. That is to dissuade the accused and other males with similar impulses not to commit the same offence on young girls. But this court is of the view that the accused is now a very responsible person after his religious training and the assumption of duties as a member of the clergy. The court is mindful of the possibility that he may loss his position as a member of the clergy because of the sanction which the court will impose on him in regard to this case.

The effect of this offence on very small girls as the victim in this case is very serious. They may suffer psychological trauma or may be pregnant. Fortunately for her these did not occur in her case. The medical report confirmed that there was no laceration or scars seen on her vagina.

There was considerable delay between the arrest and the trial of the accused. He cannot bear the blame for it. That is a matter which the responsible investing police officers should have avoided. The delay in this case was eight years.

The police conducted the interview of the accused on 12 November 2008. By then the accused fully admitted the offence. He explained in his record of interview that he was tempted by the victim to commit the offence. She usually made the following statement to him “Give me your penis”. At other times she would pock his penis. The victim fully cooperated with the accused by assisting the accused in holding his penis and pushing it into her vaginal when the accused was in the process of penetrating her.

The defence submitted that the accused was in breach of trust when he had sexual intercourse with the victim. There is evidence that the accused was the victim’s class teacher at school when he committed the offence with her. The concept of breach of trust is not confined to persons who hold professional or statutory positions. Teachers^[1] may also be considered as holding such positions.

The defence submitted that the sentence imposed on the accused be suspended.

The accused is a first offender with no criminal record. There was delay in dealing with his case after his arrest and the committal proceedings. His guilty plea saves the victim from embarrassment, discomfort and inconvenience. It saves the cost of calling witnesses. He paid compensation to the relatives of the victim after his offending. He may lose his job as result of his conviction.

In the circumstances, the accused is sentenced to four years’ imprisonment effective from the 10^th of August 2016, the date he entered his guilty plea to his offence. Order accordingly.

BY THE COURT

^[1] George (1980) 4 Crim L.J.378