HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Hite 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	6 March 2025	
		
Parties: 	Rex v John Hite 	
		
Date of hearing: 	28 February and 3 March 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	503 of 2024	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Maina; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The defendant is convicted upon own pleas on the five counts,
2. On count 1, the defendant is sentence to 9 years imprisonment,
3. On Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 the defendant is sentence to 8 years for each of 4 counts.
4. The sentences are excessive, the principle of totality is applied with Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 to be served concurrent to Count 1.
5. No further orders	
		
Representation: 	Tonowane N for the Crown 
Alasia for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 S 136F (1) (a) & (b) , S 136 [cap 26], S 4	
		
Cases cited:	Ligiau and Dori [1985-1986] SILR 214, Pana v Regina [2013] SBCA 19, Bade v R [2023] SICOA 39, R v Sinatau [2023] SBCA 38, R v Taku (Unreported Criminal Case 3 of 1995), Fiuadi v R [1988-1989] SILR 150, 	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 503 of 2024

REX 

V

JOHN HITE 

Date of Hearing: 28 February 2025 and 3 March 2025
Date of Sentence: 6 March 2025

Tonowane N for the Crown 
Alasia for the Defendant 
SENTENCE 
Maina PJ:
You, defendant John Hite were charged with five counts of rape contrary to section 136F (1) (a) & (b) of the Penal Code [Cap 26] as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) Sexual Offences Act 2016.
1. 	It should be noted here that these charges are also offences under the section 163 of the Penal Code [Cap 26] as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) Sexual Offences Act 2016. However, the Crown decide to bring you to court under section 136F (1) (a) & (b) of the Penal Code [Cap 26] as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) Sexual Offences Act 2016. The two offences collaborate in the elements except the element of biological parent in section 163 of the Penal Code.
2. 	The fact of being a parent has been used as aggravating factor when the defendant is charge under section 136F (1) (a) & (b) of the Penal Code [Cap 26] as amended in Sexual Offences Act 2016. And the sentence for the offences would be comparable as either offence’s maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
3. 	For this case, it was alleged that you raped the victim Beatrice Guanaru on five occasions at Baru family house, Noro Western Province in 2022, 2023 and 2024. The incidents occurred on an unknown date and the first incident between 1st January – 31st December 2022, second and third incidents between 1st January – 31st December 2023 and fourth and fifth incidents between 1st January – 31st August 2024.
4. 	When the defendant was arraigned on 28th February 2025, he entered guilty pleas on all five counts of rape. The court entered guilty pleas and adjourned to 3rd March 2025 for the counsels to sort out the agreed facts. The court directed for the sentencing submissions to be available on the return date.
5. 	On 3rd March 2025, the facts were presented to the court and the defendant agreed to the facts. Accordingly, the court convicted defendant Hite upon his own plea on all five counts of rape. 
Agreed Facts
6. 	The agreed facts of the case were presented to court by Mr. Tonowane in written form as follows:
(i) 	The defendant is John Hite of Kolobagea Village, North New Georgia, Western Province. He was born on 15 July 1985 and was 37 years old at the time of the offending in 2022; 38 years old at the time of the offending in 2023, and 39 years old at the time of the offending 2024.
(ii) 	The victim is Beatrice GUANARU of Baru, Noro Town, Western Province. She was born on 15 May 2012 at the National Referral Hospital in Honiara. She was 10 years old and in grade 3 at Baru Primary School, at the time of the offending in 2022. At the time of offending in 2023, she was in grade 4 and was 11 years old, and at the time offending in 2024, she was in grade 5 and was 12 years old.
(iii) 	The defendant is the biological father of the victim. She was the first born in the family while a boy namely Junior was the second. Her mother is Tamu RADE (defendant’s wife).
(iv) 	The first incident occurred on unknown date between 1 January and 31 December 2022 in their family home at Baru area, Noro, in the Western Province.
(v) 	During that time, the defendant called her to go inside the room. There, he locked the door, removed her clothes with his two hands and held her vagina. He then licks or sucks her two breasts and kissed her. When she cried, he slapped her mouth and told her not to tell anyone. After that, he pushed his penis in her vagina and it was very painful to her. The victim did not agree to what her father did to her, but rather she submit out of respect or fear due to the defendant’s position of authority, trust or responsibility as her biological father.
(vi) 	The second and third incidents occurred on an unknown date between 1 January 2023 and 31 December 2023 in their family home at Baru area, Noro, in the Western Province, when her mother (defendant’s wife) went to work at the Soltuna Company at night. At that time, he held her vagina, suck her two breasts and kissed her. He then pushed his finger in and out of her vagina and then pushed his penis in her vagina. She was afraid and did not want what her father did to her, but she was afraid to tell anyone, because her father told her if she tells anyone, he could kill her. She did not agree to what her father did to her.
(vii) 	The fourth and fifth incidents occurred on an unknown date between 1 January 2024 and 31 August 2024 in their family home at Baru area, Noro, in the Western Province. Her father did the same thing to her. He removed her clothes by using his both hands, and push his finger inside her vagina in and out, whilst sucking her breasts. He then pushed his penis in her vagina. It was very painful to her at that time. She did not agree to what her father did to her.
(viii) 	She said she did not want what her father (defendant) always did to her and she said she could no longer stay with her parent (mother & father).
(ix) 	In June 2024, when her aunty namely Beatrice arrives back from Honiara, she went and lives with her at the Catholic area in Noro. There, she told her mother and her aunty about what her father did to her. Her aunty Beatrice and aunty Mary then took her to the Police Station and report the allegation to Police.
7. 	The offence of rape is serious offence under our laws and it is reflected with the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
8. 	Rape is very serious offence as stated by His Lordship Ward CJ in R v Ligiau and Dori when he said: 
	“Rape is an extremely serious offence. It is an offence of violence based on a selfish disregard of the rights and feelings of another and is likely to cause, more than almost any other offence, serious and long-lasting harm to the victim.
9. 	The seriousness in the offence as alluded by CJ Ward has been the basis or guideline in the approach of the court in dealing with the sentence of rape and or offences under section 136F (1) (a) & (b) of the Penal Code [Cap 26] as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) Sexual Offences Act 2016.
10. 	Hence, rape on occasions has been collaborated with violence either in serious or minor form and is being treated or used as aggravating factors in the court’s consideration of the appropriate sentence for the offender.
11. 	Counsel for the Crown focused his sentencing submission on the aggravating features of the case while the Defence’s submission fixed on the mitigating factors and starting point with comparative sentence on the rape cases. Both counsels also made references to numerous case laws in their submissions.
12. 	Crown Counsel Tonowane stated in his submission that the defendant is the biological father of the victim and he committed to offences when the victim was 10, 11, and 12 years of age in 2022 and 2023. The incident occurred in the family home at Baru area, Noro Western Province.
13. 	Crown Counsel submitted that the following aggravating features in this case also need to be considered in the sentence, the age of the victim, breach of trust, age disparity, psychological and emotional effect on the victim, commission of the offence in the family home, repeated commission of the offence and pre-mediated offending.
14. 	I noted the Crown Counsel’s submission and that the victim was a child and under the law in section 4 of the Penal Code [Cap 26] as amended Sexual Offences Act 2016 it provides for the meaning of a “child means a person under the age of 18 years of age”.
15. 	For the age of the child to be an aggravating factor, the case of Pana v Regina which the Crown counsel also referred to said that victim’s actual age should be still be taken into account as possible factor over and above and with an aggravating effect on the sentence the court said that it will usually be greater the younger the child.
16. 	With the breach of trust, counsel Tonowane said that the defendant is the biological father and being the father, he is entrusted to provide security to his daughter instead he abused that responsibility.
17. 	For the mitigating factors, counsel Alasia for the defendant asked the court to take into account in the sentence that defendant is the first offender, early guilty plea serves the court’s time, remorsefully for his conduct, the 5 months spent in custody, attended a rehabilitation course at the Correctional Centre and he can now integrate and be useful member of the community. Counsel said that his client intends to reconcile but the victim’s mother and her relatives refused to reconcile with him.
18. 	Counsel Alasia made a lot references to the numerous court cases on the issues of starting point and comparative sentencing in the rape cases. Counsel agrees on the starting point in the sentence of rape set by the courts.
Starting Point 
19. 	In this jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal (COA) has settled the starting point on sentence of the rape and or the offences under section 136F (1) (a) & (b) of the Penal Code [Cap 26] as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) Sexual Offences Act 2016.
20. 	The COA set the starting point of eight years imprisonment in cases of Pana v Regina, Bade v R, R v Tony Sinatau and others.
21. 	Crown’s counsel raised the aggravating factors but defence did not make response to them but they just dwelt on mitigation aspects for the court to take into account in the sentence.
22. 	It is noted from both counsels’ submissions, the defendant is the father of the victim, that being the aggravating factor and that also indicate the acts is serious and concern to the community.
23. 	The mitigating factors is of equal importance to aggravating factors and it is important to understand that the ‘mitigating factors’ will result in a reduced sentence while ‘aggravating factors’ will result in a more severe sentence than would otherwise be imposed.
24. 	The defendant is a male genetic parent of the victim and the victim’s age was 10 years at the time of the first incident and later at 11 - 12 years. Noticeably, it is clear the defendant had committed the serious offences and he deserves a sentence to realise that he done an act not only wrong in the law but also wrong in the family and the community. 
25. 	In this jurisdiction any offence where a breach of trust is involved, a sentence of imprisonment will always be appropriate and with sexual offences, a custodial sentence will always be imposed for the offence.
26. 	With breach of trust and the victim was vulnerable the defendant took advantage to do his disgraceful act and behaviours to his own daughter and in the family home at Baru, Noro Western Province.
27. 	This type of behaviour is not accepted in our communities as it spoils the family’s life and it is not surprise that the defendant’s wife and her relatives do not want to reconcile with him. In custom what defendant did is also wrong and if it was in the olden days can result to deaths and tribal fights.
28. 	The law is made to protect female gender and particularly the child under the or below the age of 18 years. This type offence is increasing as noted from cases coming to the court. Among these offenders is you John Hite now ready to be sentence for sexual abused of your daughter who was a child.
29. 	I have considered the aggravating factors with the circumstances of the case drawn from the facts, the defendant is the father of the victim, breach of trust or responsibility towards the victim. With the mitigating factors, the defendant is the first offender, entered guilty pleas on the five charges that spares the court’s time and costs of a full trial.
30. 	The increase of sexual and abuse of child 10 years and or below the 18 years these days should also be our concern. While the court does it’s part with the interpretation of the law, any sentence the court would impose should also send clear message to anyone who wish or intend to involve in such behaviours that the court is concern with increased number of sexual offence coming to the court and will send people to prison who commit these type of offences.
31. 	It is therefore my view the appropriate sentences to impose for this defendant is 9 years for Count 1 and 8 years for each count 2, 3, 4 and 5.
32. 	And accordingly, I sentence the defendant John Hite to imprisonment for Count 1 - 9 years and Counts 2, 3, 4, 5 to 8 years for each of 4 counts.
33. 	I noted that the sentences are excessive for the five counts to be served by the defendant.
Orders of the Court:
1.	The defendant is convicted upon own pleas on the five counts,
2.	On count 1, the defendant is sentence to 9 years imprisonment,
3.	On Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 the defendant is sentence to 8 years for each of 4 counts.
4.	The sentences are excessive, the principle of totality is applied with Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 to be served concurrent to Count 1.
5.	No further orders
THE COURT
HON. JUSTICE LEONARD R MAINA
PUISNE JUDGE