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

R v Tekeliade [2021] SBHC 156; HCSI-CRC 142 of 2017 (15 October 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 142 of 2017

REGINA

V

ALFRED TEKELIADE

Circuit: Lata, Temotu Province

Date of Sentence: 15 October 2021

Ratu O for the Crown
Fagani M for the Defence

SENTENCE

The defendant Alfred Tekeliade of Noipe village, Santa Cruz Islands Temotu Province was charged with two counts of rape contrary to section 136 F (1) (a) and (b) of the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016. However, the DPP nolle one count and now you have only one count of rape.

You had pleaded guilty on one count of rape and accordingly I convicted you on the charge.

1. Agreed Facts

The defendant is from Noipe village Santa Cruz Islands and complainant Doreen Sikoke is also from Noipe village, Santa Cruz Islands Temotu Province. The defendant had or was the one who paid the pride price for the complainant’s mother.

On 15^th September 2016 and at the time of the incident, the complainant was sent to assist the defendant and his family on the preparation for their church saint’s day. She went and lived with them.

On that day the defendant went to the bush to cut loycane rope and the defendant’s daughter, Alice told the complainant to follow the defendant to the bush in case a wild man would kill him. Alice also told the complainant that the defendant would easily get angry if she refuses.

When the complainant heard what Alice had said to her, the complainant followed the defendant into the bush. As they went further into the bush between Noipe and Manapuri, the defendant cut some loycane rope and then the rain was falling and so the complainant went and hid from the rain under a tree. As they were sheltering under the tree, the defendant moved close to the complainant and took off her trouser and her skirt. She was wearing trousers under the skirt at the time of the incident and the defendant laid her on the grass.

The complainant was afraid and tried to struggle but the defendant from Noipe village Santa Cruz Islands held her tight. The defendant kneeled down towards her and held her breast. He then took his penis and pushed it into the complainant’s vagina. As he penetrated his penis into her vagina he moved his penis in and out of the vagina.

After that the defendant told the complainant not to tell anybody about what had they had done or happened to them. And then, they went home.

When they arrived at Mekabu’s garden, the defendant told the complainant again that she should not tell anybody in case his wife would hear about it. She also told the complainant not to tell anybody as what they had done was a bad thing.

When they arrived home the complainant did not tell anyone but a week after the incident the complainant went to Mary Liame’s house and she told them about what the defendant Alfred Tekeliade did to her.

The complainant’s parent heard the story and reported it to the Lata Police

2. The penalty

Section 136 F (1) (a) and (b) of the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 provides that a person commits an offence if the person has sexual intercourse with another person without the other person's consent; and knowing about or being reckless as to the lack of consent, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

3. Antecedents

The accused was 59 years old at the time of the offences and has no previous conviction.

4. Mitigation

Credit for plea of guilty and no previous conviction and that is taken into account in this sentence.

5. Aggravating features

These are the aggravating features in this case:

• For age disparity, it is 43 years as the victim was 16 years old and accused was 59 years old,
• Abuse of trust as complainant is the uncle to him.
• These sexual acts have caused the physical and psychological impacts on the life of the complainant.

The Sentence

I wish to state here that the sexual offences of this nature seems to be prevailing or become common these days in our communities as can be noted from cases coming before the court at this circuit, the majority are sexual offence cases.

With this case the defendant was 59 years as the complainant was 16 years old, a disparity of 43 years.

These sexual behaviors are imminent or loomed in our communities, a shameful and disgraceful act on the accused, families, relatives, community, island, province and even our beloved Solomon Islands. A need on part or in all segment in Government, churches, communities’ leadership and even the people must concern to before it gets worse. On part of the court, we will punish or impose sentences on those who are found guilty by the court.

I noted from the submissions by both counsels and the cases on the starting point in the sentence for rape. It is settled in the case R. v. Ligiau and Dori when the court adopted the 5 years’ imprisonment unless or otherwise the court thinks such case with evidences or facts deserves a higher starting point.

The accused was arrested for the offence on 27^th September 2017 and was remand in custody until released on bail 6^th November 2019. He was in custody for 2 years one month and 9 days.

Upon considering the antecedents, mitigation and aggravating features in this case I am satisfied the accused deserves 4 years’ imprisonment.

Order of the Court

1. The accused is sentence to 4 years’ imprisonment,
2. The time spent in custody to be deducted from this sentence,
3. No further orders

THE COURT
Hon Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge