Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

State v Koroi [2002] FJHC 145; HAA0050X.2002S (14 August 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: HAA0050 OF 2002

Between:

STATE
Appellant

-v-

NAVAUNIANI KOROI
Respondent

Mr V. Vosarogo for Appellant
Ms J. Nair for Respondent

Hearing: 7^th August 2002

Sentence: 14^th August 2002

SENTENCE

Navauniani Koroi, you are convicted on your pleas of guilty to five counts of rape. The facts as read by the prosecution disclose that in December 1999, July 2001, January 2002 and February 2002 you raped your daughter, a school girl Ana Tavaciri Koroi. On Count 1, she was only 13 years old. She became pregnant as a result of the rapes and has now delivered your child. The child is now in the care of Social Welfare.

The tariff for Rape

In Mohammed Kasim -v- The State Crim. App. 21/93 the Fiji Court of Appeal recommended that the starting point for rape should be 7 years imprisonment where there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, to be adjusted up or down to take them into account. In Maika Soqonaivi -v- The State Crim. App. No. AAU008.1997, a 6 year term for a rape where violence was used, and the victim a young adult and a co-worker, was held to be “appropriate”, although the Court commented that: “Having regard to the aggravating features, particularly the violence, the appellant may have been fortunate to have received a sentence less than the 7 year starting point.” In Mark Mutch -v- The State Crim. App. No. AAU0060.1999, the appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment on one count of rape, and 4 years on four counts of indecent assault. The Court of Appeal held that:

“The Court has recommended that the starting point for rape should be 7 years where there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, to be adjusted up or down to take them into account: see Mohammed Kasim -v- The State (Crim. App. 21/93) and Maika Soqonaivi -v- The State. His Lordship referred to these guidelines in his sentencing remarks and it is difficult to understand his failure to go beyond the starting point of 7 years to take into account the seriousness of the aggravating features of this offence against a nine year old girl whom the appellant had befriended and who regarded him as a trusted adult. A prison term of ten years must be regarded as the minimum appropriate in the circumstances and the appeal is allowed to the extent of increasing that sentence accordingly.”

Turning to this case, I have noted all that has been said on your behalf by counsel including your age, your service in the Military Forces and the fact that your family is now suffering. I also take into account your guilty plea which means that your daughter is spared the ordeal of giving evidence.

However, the offences you have committed are extremely grave. Not only have you committed the offences of rape on a child, but that child was your daughter. You are the one person in the world that she should have been able to trust absolutely with her life and her welfare. You have grossly abused that trust. Further you caused her to have a child which in turn has robbed your daughter of her childhood.

Taking 7 years as the starting point, I increase that term by two years for the young age of the complainant, and a further 3 years for the fact that she is your daughter. I add a further year for the resulting pregnancy. I reduce the term by one year for the guilty plea and other mitigation. The sentence on each count is therefore 12 years imprisonment. The total term would be manifestly excessive if I were to order each term to be served consecutively, as would normally be the case.

I therefore order that the sentence on each count be served concurrently with each other.

The sentences are as follows:

Count 1: 12 years imprisonment;

Count 2: 12 years imprisonment;

Count 3: 12 years imprisonment;

Count 4: 12 years imprisonment;

Count 5: 12 years imprisonment.

They are to be served concurrently and must run from the 12^th of February 2002 when you were first sentenced in the Magistrates Court.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
14^th August 2002