Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Public Prosecutor v Scott [2002] VUSC 60; SC 699-02 (28 February 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 699 of 2002
Supreme Court File No. 01 of 2002

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

V,

MASLEA SCOTT
TULA JEREMIAH
REASONS FOR ORAL JUDGMENT

This judgment provides the reasons for the oral decision for the Court pronounced on 30^th January 2002.

The two defendants were charged as follows:-

(1) Maslea Scott with Aiding Rape contrary to sections 30 reading in conjunction with section 91 of the Penal Code Act [CAP.135] (the Act).

(2) Tula Jeremiah with Rape contrary to section 91 of the Act.

Both Accuseds pleaded guilty as charged at the time of arraigment. Convictions were entered in accordance with their guilty pleas.

I sentenced Tula Jeremiah for rape to three years imprisonment suspended for three years. I took into consideration the following factors submitted in mitigation:-

(a) He denied an intention to have sex with the complainant and claimed that he did it only to protect her from further assaults on her by Maslea Scott. The facts were that after Maslea Scott had had sexual intercourse with the complainant as a consenting party, he asked her to have sex with Tula Jeremiah also. When she refused and was running away that Maslea gave chase and caught up with her and assaulted her.

(b) After the incident Tula Jeremiah accompanied the complainant to a house and bandaged her wounds.

(c) Tula Jeremiah gave the complainant VT1.000 to help her go for treatment at the Northern District Hospital which the complainant confirmed receiving and using.

(d) Tula Jeremiah admitted having sex with the complainant to the police on interview.

(e) He is a young man of 25 years with no previous criminal record. He was a first offender.

(f) He expressed remorse through counsel and undertook that he would not repeat such action.

As for Maslea Scott I also sentenced him to 3 years imprisonment suspending same for a period of 3 years. I treated him as a principal offender. He was fortunate not to have been charged also for intentional assault causing grievous bodily harm. He had sexual intercourse first with the complainant as a consenting party and then forced her to have sex with his friend by severely beating her up. Had it not been for the assault there would not have been any offence of rape. In any event, I was of the view that such a sentence was appropriate for the following reasons or factors which were submitted in mitigation:-

(a) Maslea Scott is a young man of 23 years with a wife and 3 children.

(b) He co-operated with the police by making admissions on interview.

(c) He was a first offender with no previous criminal record.

(d) He expressed remorse through counsel and under took not to repeat his actions.

The suspended sentences were imposed under the provisions of the Suspended of Sentences Act [CAP. 67].

Both Accuseds were young men. Their actions were out of character in my view. Whilst the offences they were charged with were serious offences with very heavy prison terms, as first-offenders automatically it occurred that a prison term outright was ruled out. That being so, the only remaining alternative sentence which would be appropriate for the Accuseds in their circumstances, but which would still act as both a specific and general deterrence was a suspended prison term. In my humble opinion the sentences imposed on both Accused were fair and proper according to the circumstances of the case.

PUBLISHED at Luganville this 28th day of February, 2002.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK
JUDGE