![]() |
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Nauru |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU
AT YAREN
[CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]
Criminal Case No. 05 of 2024
BETWEEN: THE REPUBLIC
PROSECUTION
AND: BRANLEN KAM
ACCUSED
BEFORE: Keteca J
Date of Hearing: 10th December 2024
Date of Sentence: 17th December 24
Case may be cited as: Republic v Branlen Kam
Catchwords: Rape & Indecent Act in Relation to a Child under 16 years old: contrary to Sections 116(1)(b) and 117 (a) (b) (c) of the Crimes Act 2016. Accused opting not to give evidence.
Appearances:
Counsel for the Prosecution: M. Suifa’asia
Counsel for the Accused: S. Hazelman
SENTENCE
BACKGROUND
MAXIMUM PENALTY
ANTECEDENT HISTORY
SUBMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION
Counsel adds: - ‘It is a second opportunity for the victim to be heard about how she has coped and will be coping with her life after going through the criminal justice process.’
The victim is 13 years old now. She is confused and angry. Embarrassed too. She is afraid of adult men. The victim’s mother was also hurt when she learned of the offending on her daughter. The victim prefers to stay home now.
‘The accused was the partner of the victim’s mother, and she regarded him as a step-father. The victim was very young when the mother moved in with the accused after leaving the victim’s biological father. The accused was a trusted figure in the home until he started to exploit the victim. The incidents took place at different locations where family members including the complainant’s mother were present. The locations on the 4 occasions were secure homes where a child such as the victim would least expect a member of the family to be intruding into the privacy and secure space where she should feel safe.’
At paragraph [31], Counsel submits:
‘It has become a familiar narrative in the Nauruan Society, that stepfathers, cousins and uncles more than strangers have preyed on young female members of their family. The Court in R v Tsiode [2022] NRSC 7; Criminal Case 18B of 2020 (18 February 2022) recognises this where it states ‘it is indeed very disturbing and worrying trend in the country that almost all sexual abuses are committed by close family members...’
SUBMISSION BY THE DEFENCE
DISCUSSION
I said the following:
‘27. I am required to give reasons for the sentences that I pass. In WO (a child) v Western Australia (2005) 153 A Crim R 352 (WA CA), in a joint judgment, the court said:
‘Every court sentencing an offender is required to give reasons for that sentence. The reasons need not be elaborate, but must in every case, be sufficient to enable the offender, and the public, to understand why that sentencing disposition was chosen and to preserve to the offender the right of appeal.
The court added:
‘In a context where a sentence of imprisonment is a last resort (as it is both for children and for adults, although the principle has greater weight in respect of the former), those sentencing remarks will always be deficient if it is not possible to discern from them why a sentence of detention or imprisonment, as opposed to some other disposition, was selected.’
28. In R v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; 115 A Crim R 104 (CCA), Spigelman CJ said (at 394-395; 113-114[42]-[44]):
‘Sentencing judges are under an obligation to give reasons for their decisions. Remarks on sentence are no different in this respect from other judgments. This is a manifestation of the fundamental principle of common law that justice must not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done. The obligation of a court is to publish reasons for its decision, not merely to provide reasons to the parties.”
29. In my sentencing remarks in R v Xavier Namaduk, Criminal Case No 24 of 2021 (sentence passed on 04th October 24), I referred to the deterrence and rehabilitation factors as purposes of sentencing. I mentioned the following:
‘. Under Section 278(b) of the Crimes Act 2016- it provides:
“to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other people from committing similar offences.”
[28]. In R v Radich [1954] NZLR 86 (CA) the court said (at 87):
“We should say at once that this last argument omits one of the main purposes of punishment, which is to protect the public from the commission of such crimes by making it clear to the offender and to other persons with similar impulses that, if they yield to them, they will meet with severe punishment. In all civilized countries, in all ages, that has been the main purpose of punishment, and it still continues so. The fact that punishment does not entirely prevent all similar crimes should not obscure the cogent fact that the fear of severe punishment does, and will, prevent the commission of many that would have been committed if it was thought that the offender could escape without punishment, or with only a light punishment.’
The court added:
“If a court is weakly merciful, and does not impose a sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, it fails in its duty to see that the sentences are such as to operate as a powerful factor to prevent the commission of such offences. On the other hand, justice and humanity both require that the previous character and conduct, and probable future life and conduct of the individual offender, and the effect of the sentence on these, should also be given the most careful consideration, although this factor is necessarily subsidiary to the main considerations that determine the appropriate amount of punishment.”
[29] On rehabilitation as a purpose of sentencing, Section 278(d) provides:
“to promote the rehabilitation of the offender.”
[30] In Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108, King CJ said:
“The protection of the community is also contributed to by the successful rehabilitation of offenders. This aspect of sentencing should never be lost sight of and it assumes particular importance in the case of first offenders and others who have not developed settled criminal habits. If a sentence has the effect of turning an offender towards a criminal way of life, the protection of the community is to that extent impaired. If the sentence induces or assists an offender to avoid offending in future, the protection of the community is to that extent enhanced.”
As in paragraph [20] above, this is another sad and unfortunate case where a child is sexually violated in her own home. It did not happen once. The offending took place on several occasions. The crime was not perpetrated by a total stranger. Like similar cases in the past, the accused is not only known to the victim. He holds a position of trust in the household as the victim’s step-father. The complainant had been living with her mother and the accused since she was 6 years old. She was violated when she was 9 years old. The accused pleaded not guilty. The victim had to go through each episode of the offending. It would not be too far- fetched to infer that she would have felt violated all over again. When it was suggested to her in cross-examination that the accused did not have sexual intercourse with her- she confidently said- “I’m the one- it happened to me.’ The accused opted to remain silent. That is his right. Thus, there was no remorse shown at all. I repeat here what I said in my judgment- As was said in Weissenteiner v R (1993) CLR 217 at 227-8 :
‘In a criminal trial, hypotheses consistent with innocence may cease to be rational or reasonable in the absence of evidence to support them when the evidence, if it exists at all, must be within the knowledge of the accused.’
‘33. Parliament has prescribed that those convicted of the rape of a child under 16 years, will be awarded a sentence of imprisonment. It is not a question of whether he should be imprisoned or not. Rather, it’s how long he should be imprisoned for. This message should be declared aloud from the rooftops and pinnacles throughout Nauru. Accused persons who are convicted for sexual offences against children will be punished severely. The sentence will reflect Nauru society’s condemnation of such criminal conduct. It also represents a symbolic, collective statement, as legislated by parliament, that when you sexually assault a child, be prepared to spend more than 15 Christmases behind bars.
CONCLUSION
DATED this 17th day of December 2024.
Kiniviliame T. Keteca
Acting Chief Justice
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/nr/cases/NRSC/2024/39.html