REASONS FOR DECISION
On the 11th of September 1997 the appellant was convicted in the Labasa Magistrate Court after he pleaded guilty to an offence of Indecent Assault. Upon his conviction the appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
He nowals against thst the sentence on the ground that it is 'harsh and excessive' bearing in mind his relative youth (23 years); the fact that he is a first offender; and the p of his family.
>
At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant who appeared in person in the Magistrate Court proclaimed his innocence of any wrong doing
and asserted that he had been forced by the police to plead guilty.
However no details of the assault or the names of his assailants was provided to the Court on appeal. Furthermore no complaint was
made to the trial magistrate by the appellant when he first appeared in Court and pleaded 'guilty' (not once, but twice, as the court record shows).
I summarily reject the appellant's rather easy and convenient claim of being forced by the police to admit something he did not do,
nor in my view, has it been sufficiently demonstrated to the Court that his plea was in any way equivocal.
As for the appellant's claim that the complainant 'had a dream' about being indecently assaulted, even allowing for the complainant's tender age (7 years), it is beyond imagination or coincidence that the assailant in her so-called 'dream' was none other than the appellant, who was alone in the house with the complainant and her sister at the material time, and furthermore,
an examination of the complainant's vagina soon after the alleged incident revealed that 'the skin around the hymen is inflamed', which injury, the medical examiner described as being 'consistent with the complainant's history'; and I would add, also with the facts outlined in Court which was to the effect that the appellant had inserted his finger into the
victim's vagina and was fiddling with it for about 5 minutes.
In the circumstances, the appellant's conviction was entirely proper and is accordingly upheld.
As for sentence, the trial magistrate correctly noted that the appellant was a 23 year old first offender and the victim was only 7 years old and was related to the appellant's wife.
Quite plainly an immediate custodial sentence was inevitable and was very properly imposed by the trial magistrate.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
D.V. Fatiaki
JUDGE
At Labasa,
26th January, 1998.
Haa0054d.97b
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/1998/6.html
