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

Regina v Leua [2014] SBHC 151; HCSI-CRC 228 of 2014 (28 November 2014)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)
Criminal Case No. 228 of 2014

REGINA

V

DANIEL LEUA

Hearing : 7 November 2014
Sentence : 28 November 2014

Mr. Vaiyu for the Crown
Ms. Karani for the Accused

SENTENCE

1. The Accused Daniel Leua pleaded guilty to one count of rape, contrary to section 136 of the Penal Code. On the morning of Saturday 5 April 2014, at Balo Village, in the Aola area of Guadalcanal, the victim was asked by her sister the wife of the Accused, to accompany the Accused to the garden to dig some Kumara and pick cabbage known as Kasume in the Aola area of Guadalcanal. That type of cabbage is a fern which grows in wet areas and along river banks. The Accused and Victim were subsequently joined by three women at the kumara garden after the offence occurred.
   
2. When the Accused and the victim arrived at the garden, the Accused told the victim for both of them to go and get some cabbage first before returning to the garden to dig kumara before returning home. The victim disagreed with that plan and proposed that they dig the kumara first as the area where the cabbage was to be picked was still further away in the bush. Having considered the matter for some time, the victim finally accepted the plan when it was put to her three times by the Accused.
   
3. They left the garden following a bush track leading further into the bush to reach the wet area to pick the cabbage. On their way along the track, the victim was walking behind the Accused. The Accused suddenly stopped walking and told the victim, "iu sit down wanfala man nao long frant ia". Thinking that the Accused was telling the truth, the victim walked passed the Accused and sat down in front of him facing the direction where the Accused said he had seen someone. When she looked back, she was surprised to see that the Accused was completely naked with his erected penis. The Accused walked towards the victim who was still sitting down. The Victim said to the Accused, "wat nao iu laik duim ia". The Accused did not respond, but moved forward and grabbed the hands of the victim and pulled her backward to lie down on the ground. He then removed her trousers and under pant. He then forced her legs apart, mount her and penetrated her vagina with his penis, which caused her a lot of pain. He had unlawful sexual intercourse with her until he ejaculated in her vagina.
   
4. After the incident, the Accused put on his clothes and so as the victim and resume their journey to collect cabbage and returned to the garden. Three women were at the garden. All of whom were relatives of the Accused. She therefore did not tell them about the incident. However, the victim reported the incident to her sister, the wife of the Accused, when she arrived back at the village.
   
5. The victim was aged sixteen years old and was in Form 2 at school at the time of the offence. There is no doubt that the offence tarnished the victim's image within her community and her school.
   
6. There is an age disparity between the victim and the accused. At the time of offending, the Accused was aged 28 years whilst the victim was a young girl of 16 years old.
   
7. Rape is a very serious offence as reflected by its sentence. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Accused is the brother-in-law of the victim. The Accused is thus a person of responsibility and trust to the victim. He breached that trust and responsibility when he raped her whom he knew to be the sister of his wife. The offence is prevalence in this jurisdiction. It is clear that the Accused planned the offence. He deceived the victim that someone was in front of them. She became scared and sat down in front of the Accused and looked towards the direction where the Accused saw someone. That was false, and instead removed all his cloths. Being naked, he approached the victim, lay her on her back, mounted her and raped her.
   
8. This case is serious. Its aggravating features are that the offence was planned and that the Accused held position of responsibility towards the victim in that she is his sister-in-law.
   
9. There are mitigating features in this case in favour of the Accused. They are that the Accused has no previous conviction and this was his first offending. He did not use force over and above that was necessary to commit the offence. He entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity which served time and expense of running a trial. However, the Accused will still serve a custodial sentence due to the prevalence and the seriousness of this kind of offence.
   
10. The starting point of sentencing in this Accused's offence is seven years imprisonment. However, that sentence will be reduced to five years imprisonment to reflect the mitigating factors referred to above. The Accused will accordingly only serve a sentence of five years' imprisonment from 5 April 2014, on which day he was arrested and remanded in police custody. The Accused may appeal the sentence if he disagrees with the length of said sentence. Order accordingly.
    

THE COURT