IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 258 OF 2020

STATE

V

ILAITIA RAVITIKULA

Counsel: Ms S Shameem & Ms A Devi for the State
  Ms L Manulevu for the Accused

Date of Hearing: 21 March - 23 March 2022
Date of Judgment:	13 April 2022
Date of Sentence: 13 April 2022

SENTENCE

[1]	Following a trial, the offender was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and five counts of rape. The victim is the stepdaughter of the offender.  

[2]	The abuse started in 2017 when the victim’s mother entered in a live-in relationship with the offender after the death of her husband. At the time the victim was 11 years old and Year 6 student. The offender was 37 years old and an employee at the Fiji Water Authority.  

[3]	The first set of incidents (counts 1, 3, and 5) occurred on a Friday after school at Namadi Heights before the victim’s mother returned home from work. The victim’s mother worked as a housemaid for someone else. 

[4]	The offender invited the victim to his bedroom, undressed the victim, pulled down his pants and made her masturbate him until he ejaculated. He then penetrated the victim’s mouth with his penis and her vagina with his finger. 

[5]	The second set of incidents (counts 2, 4 and 6) occurred in 2019 after the victim’s 13th birthday. The victim’s mother was at work when the accused made the complainant to take off her clothes and masturbate him until he ejaculated. He then penetrated her mouth with his penis and her vagina with his finger. The victim did not consent to these acts.

[6]	The last incident occurred on 8 August 2020 when the victim’s mother went shopping. The offender had forceful sexual intercourse with the complainant after he returned home drunk. After the act the offender fell asleep and the victim took shelter at her neighbour’s house until her mother returned home and took her to a police station and reported the incident. 

[7]	On the same day the victim was medically examined and fresh tear and old abrasions were found in the victim’s genitalia. 

[8]	The offender was arrested and charged. He elected to be tried, which was his right, but by doing that, he had deprived himself of any discount for remorse. 

[9]	The subjective features of the offender are that he is 41 years old and is separated from his de-facto partner. He is currently employed as a construction worker. He has nine previous convictions. His last conviction was in 2011 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This is the first time he was convicted of sexual offence. But very little weight is attached to the character of the offender because of the special position of trust he held with the victim as her guardian and stepfather. 

[10]	The aggravating factors are that the victim was vulnerable as a child and the age gap between the offender and her was vast. The offender breached her trust by repeatedly violating her body, soul and dignity. She was threatened with death if she complained to anyone.  The incidents occurred in the security of her home. 

[11]	On the last occasion the offender was intoxicated. The victim pleaded with him for mercy but he did not show any mercy. She was distressed. Physical injury was caused to her genitalia. The offender did not use any protection when he forced the victim to perform oral sex on him and during sexual intercourse. The harm done to the victim is significant. 

[12]	Rape carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Sexual assault is punishable by 10 years imprisonment. 

[13]	In Aitcheson v State [2018] FJSC 29; CAV0012.2018 (2 November 2018) the Supreme Court stated: 

[24] The increasing prevalence of these crimes, crimes characterized by disturbing aggravating circumstances, means the court must consider widening the tariff for rape against children. It will be for judges to exercise their discretion taking into account the age group of these child victims. I do not for myself believe that that judicial discretion should be shackled. But it is obvious to state that crimes like these on the youngest children are the most abhorrent.

[25] 	The tariff previously set in Raj v The State [2014] FJSC 12 CAV0003.2014 (20th August 2014) should now be between 11-20 years imprisonment. Much will depend upon the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, considerations of remorse, early pleas, and finally time spent on remand awaiting trial for the final sentence outcome. The increased tariff represents the denunciation of the courts in the strongest terms. (per Gates CJ)

[14]	I pick an aggregate term of 14 years imprisonment for the five counts of rape and add 4 years to reflect the aggravating factors. The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 years imprisonment for the five counts of rape. 

[15]	On the two charges of sexual assault the offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of 4 years imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the term of 18 years imprisonment for rape.  

[16]	The total effective sentence of 18 years imprisonment marks the community’s disapproval of the abhorrent nature of the crimes against a child by her stepfather. 

[17]	The offender had already spent 7 months in custody on remand. 

[18]	The remaining term for him to serve is 17 years 5 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. 

[19]	A permanent DVRO with standard no contact and non-molestation conditions is issued against the offender for the protection of the victim. 

. …………………………………….
Hon. Mr Justice Daniel Goundar

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State
Legal Aid Commission for the Accused