Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. HAC 146 OF 2023
STATE
V
K.W.L.U.T [Juvenile]
Counsel : Mr. U. Lal for the State.
: Ms. L. Taukei for the Juvenile.
Ms. M. Simpson for the Social Welfare Department.
Date of Hearing : 05 February, 2024
Date of Punishment : 05 February, 2024
PUNISHMENT
(The names of the victim and the juvenile are suppressed they will be referred to as S.M and K.W.L.U.T respectively)
FIRST COUNT
Statement of Offence
RAPE: Contrary to section 207(1) and (2) (a) and (3) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of Offence
K.W.L.U.T, on an unknown date in 2022, at Lautoka in the Western Division, penetrated the vagina of “S.M”, a child under the age of 13 years, with his penis.
SECOND COUNT
(Representative Count)
Statement of Offence
RAPE: Contrary to section 207(1) and (2) (c) and (3) of the Crimes Act 2009.
Particulars of Offence
K.W.L.U.T, on an unknown date in 2022, at Lautoka in the Western Division, penetrated the mouth of “S.M”, a child under the age of 13 years, with his penis.
The victim is the niece of the juvenile. On an unknown date in the year 2022, the victim (8 years of age) was playing with her sister near a broken tree in front of her house. The juvenile (14 years of age) called the victim near the mangroves and made her forcefully suck his penis. Another incident occurred in the year 2022 on an unknown date the victim was playing shark and lion game in the river with her cousin. The victim was asked to pair with the juvenile to play the game and whilst playing, the juvenile made the victim to forcefully suck his penis in the river.
The matter came to light when the victim’s aunt questioned the victim after seeing her about to jump off a tree. The victim relayed the incidents to her aunt. The matter was then reported to police the juvenile was arrested and caution interviewed he admitted committing the offence. The juvenile was subsequently charged for the offence of rape.
4. After considering the summary of facts read by the state counsel which was admitted by the juvenile and upon reading his caution interview this court is satisfied that the juvenile has entered an unequivocal plea of guilty on his own freewill.
MITIGATION
6. The learned counsel for the juvenile presented the following mitigation:
TARIFF
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
9. The following aggravating factors are obvious in this case:
There is some degree of planning by the juvenile. He saw the victim playing with her sister and other children. He called her away from the others and did what he wanted to do.
The victim was vulnerable and helpless the juvenile took advantage of the situation.
The victim was 8 years of age whereas the juvenile was 14 years of age, the age difference is substantial.
The victim is the niece of the juvenile. The victim trusted the juvenile and upon being called by the juvenile she went to him. The juvenile grossly breached the trust of the victim by his action.
There is a prevalence of such offending involving juveniles who are known to the victim.
SOCIAL WELFARE REPORT
11. The Social Welfare Department recommends the following:
PARENTAL SUPPORT
17. In State vs. Alipate Sorovanalagi and others, Revisional Case No. HAR 006 of 2012 (31 May 2012), Goundar J. reiterated the following guidelines in respect of suspension of a sentence at paragraph 23:
“[23] In DPP v Jolame Pita (1974) 20 FLR 5, Grant Actg. CJ (as he then was) held that in order to justify the imposition of a suspended sentence, there must be factors rendering immediate imprisonment inappropriate. In that case, Grant Actg. CJ was concerned about the number of instances where suspended sentences were imposed by the Magistrates' Court and those sentences could have been perceived by the public as 'having got away with it'. Because of those concerns, Grant Actg. CJ laid down guidelines for imposing suspended sentence at p.7:
"Once a court has reached the decision that a sentence of imprisonment is warranted there must be special circumstances to justify a suspension, such as an offender of comparatively good character who is not considered suitable for, or in need of probation, and who commits a relatively isolated offence of a moderately serious nature, but not involving violence. Or there may be other cogent reasons such as the extreme youth or age of the offender, or the circumstances of the offence as, for example, the misappropriation of a modest sum not involving a breach of trust, or the commission of some other isolated offence of dishonesty particularly where the offender has not undergone a previous sentence of imprisonment in the relevant past. These examples are not to be taken as either inclusive or exclusive, as sentence depends in each case on the particular circumstances of the offence and the offender, but they are intended to illustrate that, to justify the suspension of a sentence of imprisonment, there must be factors rendering immediate imprisonment inappropriate."
18. The following relevant special circumstances or special reasons for the suspension of the imprisonment term in my view needs to be weighed in choosing an immediate imprisonment or a suspended punishment.
19. The juvenile is a young person as per the Juveniles Act, he is of good character, isolated offence was committed by him, he was 14 years of age at the time of the offending, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, is genuinely remorseful, cooperated with police and he takes full responsibility for his action. These special reasons render immediate imprisonment inappropriate.
21. Having considered section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act this court is of the view that the punishment is just in all the circumstances of the case.
22. The only reason why this punishment is below the tariff is because the Juveniles Act imposes a limit on the punishment for young persons.
24. The following orders are to take immediate effect:
d) The Social Welfare Department is to immediately arrange for the counselling of the juvenile in the presence of his parents with the view to assisting him in keeping away from conflict with the law;
e) The Social Welfare Department is also at liberty to work out any programs or plans which will be in the interest of the juvenile;
f) It is the responsibility of the parents of the juvenile to ensure that the juvenile obeys any directions given by the Social Welfare Department;
g) A copy of this punishment is to be served on the Officer in Charge of the Social Welfare Department, Lautoka;
h) 30 days to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Sunil Sharma
Judge
At Lautoka
05 February, 2024
Solicitors
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the State.
Office of the Legal Aid Commission for the Juvenile.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2024/75.html