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

Crown v Beato [2023] SBHC 144; HCSI-CRC 607 of 2019 (20 November 2023)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 607 of 2019

CROWN

V

WALTON BEATO

Date of Sentence: 20 November 2023

Suifa’asia M for the Crown
Waroka L for the Defence

SENTENCE

MAINA PJ:

1. At the trail of the accused Beato Walton on eleven (11) counts of incest and one count common assault with your two biological daughter, the court only found you defendant Beato Walton guilty on Count 3 – incest contrary to section 163 (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.
2. The victim was 17 years old at the time of the offence, a close family member who and to your knowledge is your biological daughter.

Maximum Penalty

3. The offence of incest is serious and carries a maximum penalty section 163 (2) (b) of the Penal Code (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 with close family member who is above 13 years of age is 10 years imprisonment however the court is obliged to impose a shorter sentence than prescribed.

The facts

4. The victim is your biological daughter and was about 17 years old at the time of incident.
5. Accused went to the room where the victim his brothers and sisters were sleeping, knocked and called the victim. He went in the room and told her daughter Hellen to sit on his leg. She refused but the accused told that is she refuse she will kill her and so she sat on his leg.
6. Accused pushed his hands in victim’s skirt held and played with her vagina. Accused told the complainant to lay down on the floor and take off her clothes. She refused but the defendant told her that if she refuse he would assault her. With these to her, the Complainant was afraid of the threats from his father she just followed him. She laid down and his father pulled out her underwear.
7. The father Mr. Beato then laid on top of her daughter and pushed his penis into her vagina and he had sexual intercourse with her. The daughter cried, as it was painful to her but his father told her: “What man plantem must harvestem”.
8. The Accused continued to fucked her daughter until he ejaculated and after that he told her daughter to go back to sleep at the blue house.

Mitigation

9. Mr. Waroka for Accused submitted for the mitigation that his client is the first offender, breadwinner of the family and since he is remanded in custody for this offence, his children are not attending schools. Accused had cooperated with the Police. Counsels said the accused had paid $500.00 compensation to the victim and he is remorseful for his action and the consequences he would face. He submitted that these factors should be taken in to account in the sentence by the court. Accused has been in custody since 2022.

Aggravating Features

10. The victim is the biological daughter of the accused and what had done to your daughter is grave breach of trust on part of the accused.

Starting Point

11. Noting the maximum penalty of incest under section 163 (2) (b) of the Penal Code (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 and considering facts, it is my view that the starting point in the sentence for the accused is 5 years imprisonment.
12. I give credit for the accused for being the first offender and I take into account the matter you raise as mitigation. For the compensation, I would say that though you paid it to your daughter such does not have the effect of the shamefulness and impact on the victim and or her future life.
13. The crime of incest is serious and this is seen or reflected in the amendment of the penalty in the Penal Code (Sexual Offences) Act 2016. The Parliament had increased the maximum penalty of incest of 13 years and above from seven years to 10 years imprisonment.
14. Logically and as the father, you should keep safe or look after your daughter but instead you abused by sexual intercourse with her. What you had done to your daughter will have impact and or a long time effect on her and that her life will never again be the same and it is when a child results from the offence.^[1]
15. Men having the children cannot be regarded them as the possession and can be disposed whenever he like or they are free to have sex with their own children. He must stand up for the dignity and human rights of his child. If he does not have such in him then he is not a normal person.
16. I have noted and assisted in the sentencing by the case of incest in this jurisdiction referred to by both counsels. I also noted the common principles of law that each case defends on its own circumstances.
17. Upon considering, the facts and the circumstances of the case and taking into account the mitigation and aggravating features, I am satisfied and sentence the accused Beato Walton to six years imprisonment.

ORDERS

1. The accused Beato Walton is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years.
2. Time spent in custody for this offence is to be deducted from this sentence.

THE COURT
Hon. Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge

^[1] Regina v Gole [2013] SBHC 183; HCSI-CRC 339 OF 2011 (28 November 2013)