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

R v Pulomana [2025] SBHC 84; HCSI-CRC 527 of 2024 (28 July 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 527 of 2024

REX

V

CHARLES PULOMANA

Date of Hearing: 17 July 2025
Date of Decision: 28 July 2025

Counsel: Auga for the Crown
Counsel: Mr Alasia for the Defendant

SENTENCE

Introduction

1. Mr. Charles Pulomana (CP) comes from Koregu village, Kmaga ward, Isabel Province. He was 40 years old at the time of offending in the year 2024. Ms. Annette Gasedia is the biological daughter of Mr. Pulomana. She was 15 years old at the time of offending.
2. Ms. Annette Gasedia complains that her father CP had sexual intercourse with her twice (April and August of the year 2024). As a result, Ms. Annette got pregnant and had already given birth to a baby girl in December 2024.
3. Mr. Charles Pulomana stands trial for two counts of rape contrary to Section 136F (1) (a) and (b) of the Penal Code Act (Cap 26) as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 (No. 3 of 2016). I will refer to the said Act as “the 2016 Act”.
4. For count 1, the particulars of offence alleged that CP, on an unknown date between 1^st April 2024 and 31^st May 2024, inside the bedroom, at Koregu village, Kmaga ward, Isabel Province did have sexual intercourse with Annette Gasedia, by inserting his penis into her vagina, without her consent and knowing about or being reckless as to the lack of consent. In count 2, the particulars of offence, are similar or identical to count 1, however the time of offending was unknown dates between 1^st June 2024 and 31^st August 2024.
5. I arraigned Mr. Pulomana on 31/04/2025 on an information filed on 23/12/2024. He entered a guilty plea to both counts. Counsel settled the agreed facts thereafter. Now I have to determine the appropriate sentence for the two offences. The maximum penalty for rape under Section 136 (F) (1) (a) and (b) of the 2016 Act is life imprisonment. As reflected in the prescribed punishment, rape is a very serious offence. It is serious in custom/culture, in common sense/humanity, in church/morality and further re-enforced in the 2016 Act, making it an unlawful sexual act with a hefty punishment. However, I have the power to impose a lesser sentence term on the merit of each case coming before me.

Gravity of the offending

6. I will place this crime at the higher scale of offending because it involves rape of a daughter (serious violation of position of trust), subsequent pregnancy and a young aged, 15 years old secondary school student daughter. It is grave, inhumane and unconceivable. It is disgusting for any father to do this to his own daughter. I would dare to say it is no different from CP feasting on his own sperm. These descriptions are distasteful to the ear, but they honestly reflect the disgusting nature of raping one’s own daughter.

Serious aggravating factors present here

7. The other way to look at the seriousness of the offending is to determine the aggravating factors present in the offending. The aggravating factors for count 1 are: -
   • (i) Age disparity – CP was 40 years old, while Annette was 15 years old at the time of rape in 2024. The age gap here is 25 years. As an adult and as the father, CP was expected and accountable to protect Annette from this type of offending (Ramaia case).
   • (ii) Young age of the victim – Annette was 15 years of age in 2024, when you raped her. According to Sinatau, Court of Appeal 2023 the age of the victim can be taken into account both in setting a starting point and when considering aggravating factors. The aggravating effect will usually be greater, the younger the child (victim). At 15 years old your daughter was just a teenager attending secondary school. She was considered a very young child/girl in terms of her sexual intactness, purity, virginity and dignity, all of which are highly treasured for young girls under 15 years or 18 years. Furthermore, Annette is too young for her cerebral innocence to be taken away in such a manner. Your sexually abusive actions took away her right as a child to create long-lasting, safe and happy memories and replaced them with nudity, and sexual violence that is traumatic and forever will be instilled in her memories with adverse lasting effects on her mentality. What is even worse is the subsequent pregnancy.
   • (iii) Abuse of position of trust – This is the first and the worst aggravating factor against you. You are the victim’s father. You have a moral duty to protect your own daughter from all forms of sexual abuse and defilement. Instead, you did the exact opposite to her due to your immoral sexual desires. That is a serious and regrettable inhuman breach of your moral duty as a father. In addition, family or blood ties between the parties have been sexually violated, meaning this is a domestic violence issue and calls for serious aggravation. Violence that occurs within the domestic relationship, let alone sexual violence (abuse) must be condemned, for it is an abuse of the family as a unit and must never go unpunished. We are a society that prides itself on worthy customs and cultures. It is our worthy custom to render love, care, respect and security to female relatives. It is a moral value and duty we cherish in custom, deeply rooted in blood relationships and kinship ties.
   • (iv) Psychological and emotional trauma on the victim – In terms of trauma and psychological harm, Court should always take judicial notice of the long-term impacts and trauma on the victim despite lack of professional and medical evidence (Bonuga, 2014 Court of Appeal). Despite lack of observable physical harm, in all rape or sexual offence cases, the level of psychological harm that creates ongoing issues for the victim is well documented and can be taken judicial notice of as per Bonuga (Liufirara, Court of Appeal 2023). Annette talked about how her dream for education and a brighter future was thrown down the abyss. How her freedom was confined due to pregnancy and how raising a child as a single mother will become a burden for her in her victim impact statement.
   • (v) Subsequent pregnancy – This is the worst aggravating factor against CP. Annette will now raise a child without any fatherly support. This is a life time hardship that Anette will endure for the rest of her life. It is a hardship that was forced against her will because she was raped by her own father.
   • (vi) Syphilis positive – Annette contracted this disease and was treated accordingly. This type of disease is normally sexually transmitted. Hence, I have to imply that CP gave the disease to Annette through sexual intercourse.
   • (vii) Drunkenness – CP went out drinking beer. When he got drunk, he came back looking for sex with his own daughter. In today’s society, men get drunk to have courage to do offensive things at home, whether it is violence, sexual abuse or just annoyance. This is a trend I observed in most sexual abuse cases of a domestic nature coming before my court. The Court must condemn such behaviours.
   • (viii) Physical harm/injury (laceration) – CP raped his 15 years old daughter victim through penial sexual intercourse, resulting in subsequent pregnancy. Annette also contracted syphilis (a sexually transmitted disease) and had lacerations inside her vagina. Undoubtedly, she had a vaginal injury. There is no doubt her virginity and sexual purity were crushed. The very act of rape is a physical violation of a victim, and physical harm is inherent in it – (R v Liufirara [2023] SBCA 10; SICOA-CRAC 30 OF 2022 (28 April 2023).
   • (ix) Weak and vulnerable – A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited by an attacker. A male is stronger than a female, in terms of their gender composition. In this case, CP exerted his dominion over the weak and vulnerable Annette, when he walked into her room at night and had sexual intercourse with her, without her knowing it because she was fast asleep. She only knew when she woke up and saw him and felt wetness in her vagina. On the second incident again in their house, CP came home drunk and went straight and had sex with his daughter at night. CP saw it fit to manipulate and exploit his daughter’s vulnerability to achieve his sexual desires. The weak cannot fight back or resist. The strong will exploit that weakness to exert control and power to achieve his will over the weak gender, as it happened to Annette right inside her father’s home.
   • (x) Pre-planning – Sexual abuse that happens to a daughter in the home under the care and custody of her father must be pre-planned because this is something that is seriously wrong and should not be happening in the home. Therefore, the father to be doing this unusual thing in the home needs some kind of prior thoughts, pre-planning and careful execution of plans on the part of the accused. Accused cannot say it was a coincidence. As part of the plan, CP told his daughter not to tell anyone. She was afraid, experienced feelings of shame and confusion. She undoubtedly had nightmares right inside her home under her father’s domain and wicked behaviours.
   • (xi) Abuse committed in the home at night – On both occasions, Annette was inside the comfort of her own house/room at night, where she should be sleeping and was entitled to security and safety from CP, her father, in their house at Koregu village. Instead, CP turned that safety net in the home into a crime scene for his own daughter.
   • (xii) Ruined education – Education is the key to the future well-being of a child. If that is true and CP and I know it is, then Annette’s life and a future for her was disrupted. She quit school due to this problem. She talked about her dreams to receive a good education, to have a good job and to have a good family in the future. This is an aggravating factor against CP. And he knew it, that he destroyed the key to the future well-being of his very own daughter. Every father wants to see their daughter excel in life. When a father ruins his own daughter’s education, I don’t have a word to describe it and I don’t know what was going on in CP’s mind. All I know is that it is stupidity at its highest.

Count 1
Starting point sentence

8. Let me determine the starting point sentence. Defence counsel did not oppose a binding starting point sentence of 8 years that the prosecutor proposed. The Court of Appeal set the starting point sentence of 8 years, where the sexual offence falls under Section 136F and Section 139 of the 2016 Act and or involves children under the age of consent or children under 15 years in a non-contested matter. Here the victim was 15 years old (age of consent is 16^[1] years) and the sexual abuse offence falls under Section 136F. Hence the starting point sentence should be 8 years according to the binding guideline set by the Court of Appeal in Sinatau, Court of Appeal, 2023.

Departure from the starting point and reasons

9. However, due to the peculiar circumstances of this case, I should depart and start at 12 years. I said earlier that this case is at the higher scale of the offending because it is inhuman, disgusting and is unimaginable. I say these because, this is a father turning on his own daughter (highest form of trust betrayal). Additionally, this is a case that involves extreme physical/psychological harm that is permanent and long lasting in nature due to the subsequent pregnancy and the regret that will stay with the victim, who will be a single mother raising up a child without support from a father. The physical harm is laceration to the vagina and the victim contracting syphilis disease. The physical or psychological harm is waking up at night to attend to the baby without support of a father. The physical or psychological harm is what the victim described in her victim impact assessment as “the freedom to move around and enjoy life as a child has been denied by her pregnancy”.
10. Furthermore at 15 years and attending secondary school, the daughter to me is a young age victim, in terms of her sexual purity, virginity and intactness. All her hopes for a brighter future and to receive good education have been prematurely thrown down into the abyss by the sexual gratification of her own father. In the victim’s impact statement, her dream is to receive good education, to get a good job and to support her family in the future. All those dreams are now shattered in vain, because her father’s head was driven by sexual desires and neglected his fatherly duty to provide for her educational welfare.
11. Starting at 12 years for the above mentioned three reasons, I will add 12 more years for the 12 serious aggravating factors, I identify in paragraph 7. Increases due to serious aggravation should be made in years and not merely in weeks and months (Bade, Court of Appeal 2023). That will bring me to 24 years aggravated head sentence before mitigation for count 1.

Mitigating factors

12. I also identify the following mitigating factors to reduce the inflated head sentence downwards: -
    • (i) Early guilty plea – I will give a 30 percent reduction because of the multiple benefits involved - to the Court (saves trial time), to the victim (spares her from the intimidating witness box) and from the offender himself (it shows remorsefulness). This works out to be 7.2 years rounded to 7 years.
    • (ii) First time offender with no previous conviction – 1 year.
    • (iii) Cooperate with the police resulting in early/quick disposal of this matter – 1 year.
    • (iv) Rehabilitation – I give 3 years because CP is a young man in his 40s and will come out from the correctional services being rehabilitated to reintegrate back into society and become a better person.
13. Defence did not make any submissions opposing the prosecutor’s submissions. Apparently, this is a case where the aggravating factors far outweighs the mitigating factors. The final head sentence after mitigation for count 1 is 12 years (24 years aggravation minus 12 years mitigation). I give big reductions here for early guilty plea and rehabilitation for the reasons outlined above.

Sentence for Count 2

14. For count 2, the departure starting point sentence will remain at 12 years, as in count 1. In terms of the aggravating factors, I will add one more aggravating factor to make it 13 aggravating factors for count 2. The additional aggravating factor for count 2 is repetitive offending. Repetitive harm occasioned on the same person is a serious aggravation that should reflect an increase in the punishment for the subsequent offence. Hence for count 2, the aggravated head sentence before mitigation is 28 years, an increase made as follows (12^[2] years + 1^[3] year = 13^[4] years + 13^[5] years + 2^[6] years = 28 years).

15. From the 28 years aggravated head sentence, I will take away 12 years in respect of the same mitigating factors in count 1 that also apply to count 2. That will bring me to a total of 16 years final head sentence after mitigation. The total head sentence of 16 years reflects repetitiveness as a serious aggravation. In many cases, the fact an offence is repeated on the same victim is a matter of considerable aggravation which can properly and understandably increase the sentence for the subsequent offence (Alu v Reginam [2016] SBCA 8; SICOA-CRAC 27 of 2014 (22 April 2016). I also use Abana, Court of Appeal 2024 which the prosecutor submitted on at pages 9 and 12 of the written submission, to make the sentence for the subsequent offence to be higher than the initial offending.

Concurrent sentence

16. The prosecutor submits that I can make the two sentences to run concurrent due to the single transaction principle because CP committed the two separate offences on the same victim (his daughter), even though spread over two different time periods. Hence, I will make the sentence in count 1 to run concurrent with the sentence in count 2 – meaning CP will serve 16 years imprisonment. This sentence term will run from 7/12/2024, when CP was first placed in custody.

Conclusion and Orders

17. Sexual offences against women and girls are on the rise in the Solomon Islands. The courts continue to emphasize that the increasing prevalence of this kind of sexual offending in our society calls for deterrent sentences.
18. This court has a duty to see that sentences it imposed give out a powerful deterrent factor to prevent the commission of such offences. Offenders must receive harsher punishment to mark society’s outrage and denunciation against sexual abuse of women and girls. The main purpose of the punishment I give here is to condemn your action and to protect the public (innocent vulnerable daughters) from the commission of such crimes by making it clear to you and others with similar impulses, that anyone who yields to this kind of crime will meet with severe punishments.
19. As I stand back and look at the circumstances of the case and ask whether the merits justify the sentence term imposed, I can say that it is a fair sentence term when you consider that the maximum penalty available for the two offences is life imprisonment and the manner in which you so inhumanly secured sex with own your daughter resulting in subsequent pregnancy. This sentence reflects the gravity of the offence and accords well with Parliament’s legislative intent to protect women and girls from sexual abuse under the 2016 Act and to impose hefty sentence terms on abuses by people in position of trust to their victims, as in your case (you are the father of your own victim daughter).
20. The final sentencing orders are: -
    • (i) CP, I will convict you for the two counts of rape because you pleaded guilty.
    • (ii) CP, I sentence you to 12 years imprisonment for count 1.
    • (iii) CP, I sentence you to 16 years imprisonment for count 2.
    • (iv) The sentence for count 1 will run concurrent with the sentence for count 2.
    • (v) CP, you will serve 16 years imprisonment only.
    • (vi) Your imprisonment sentence term to start running from 7/12/2024.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

^[1] Pana v Reginam, Court of Appeal 2013

^[2] 12 years for the same number of aggravating factors for count 1.

^[3] 1 year for additional aggravating factor for count 2 (due to repetition).

^[4] 13 years in respect of the 13 aggravating factors identified for count 2 due to repetition.

^[5] 13 more years added to the 13 years in footnote 4 (1-year increase for each aggravating factor because increases for

serious aggravation should be made in years and not in weeks and months).

^[6] 2 years increase in sentence for the subsequent offence on the basis of Abana and Alu.