N11590

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO 1531 OF 2022

THE STATE

V

LINUS ROY

LAE: KANGWIA J
4, 5 MARCH 2025

SENTENCE - Sexual penetration on two victims aged 6 years at the same time- Convicted after trial – sentence to reflect rare case of sexual penetration.   

Cases cited
Stanley Sabiu v The State (2007) SC866

Counsel
N. Pare, for the State 
J. John, for the defence

1.	KANGWIA J:   LINUS ROY appears for sentence after he was convicted on two counts of sexual penetration pursuant to s 229A (1) & (2) of the Criminal Code. The now prisoner lured two 6-year-old girls with guava fruit to a garden where he took turns to sexually penetrate each of them while the other was watching.  

2.	He is believed to be 30 years old, single and has no formal employment. He has no prior conviction.

3.	On his allocutus he states: “I have been found guilty. I will accept whatever decision the Court makes. My brother and I are the only ones living after the father passed on last year while I was in custody. I am a villager with garden and crops on land belonging to others who want the land back. I don’t know how my two siblings will fare when I am in jail. I ask for probation and prison term in another prison”.  

4.	The PSR suggests a suspended sentence.

5.	On his behalf Mr. John submits that a concurrent sentence of 8 years was appropriate. The offender expressed genuine remorse, and the victims did not suffer any physical injury. The medical reports relied on by the prosecution did not reveal any physical injuries to the victims and in the absence of such report a cumulative sentence would be inappropriate.  

6.	On behalf of the State Mr Pare submits that this was a serious case of sexual penetration of minors and a sentence of 20 years was appropriate under the totality principle when considering a sentence of 15 years for each count. The victims were 6 years old at the time of the offences and the offender being a mature adult ought to have known better to avoid such acts. The offences were committed on one victim while the other one was watching, and the traumatic effect will remain with the victims for a long time. The offence is also prevalent and there was no reconciliation with the families of the victim.

7.	This is an aggravated sexual penetration offence. Aggravated in the sense that the victims were 6 years old and pursuant to s 229A (2) of the Criminal Code the offender faces a high sentence when the maximum prescribed penalty is life imprisonment.  Where the offence is further aggravated by threats or violence then the offence becomes more aggravated, and the penalty naturally would be higher.  

8.	In the present case it is accepted that the prisoner is a first-time offender, however that factor is rendered insignificant when the prisoner caused one of the victims to relive the ordeal, she experienced to give evidence. His remorse is belated and inconsequential as he was convicted after a trial. 

9.	As to the issue on the medical report, it is rendered insignificant when the evidence of the one victim substantially covers the other victim which remains unchallenged.  

10.	The sentencing range for sexual penetration is varied according to its own circumstances. The cited cases attest to this. However, the circumstance of this case is not the same as the cited cases. 

11.	In the present case the offence was committed on two victims in the presence of each other. It makes it a rare case of sexual penetration, and an appropriate sentence must reflect that. 

12.	To do that the offence must be measured against the moral conduct of the prisoner. The prisoner was an adult by any measure, and he ought to have known good from bad. Instead, he allowed lust and animal instincts to control him devoid of human dignity and respect.

13.	He lured the two victims with Guava fruits and took advantage of their innocence in a very cruel and inhumane way. 

14.	The offender’s conduct is begging punitive sanction with removal from society to prevent him from reoffending and as deterrence for others who may be inclined to explore similar behaviour. 

15.	Sentences for all manner of sexual penetration has increased owing to its prevalence. Sexual penetration against victims under 12 years is no exception.

16.	The Supreme Court in Stanley Sabiu v The State (2007) SC866 held that for sexual penetration on a victim who was under 12 years, the starting point should be 15 years. In line with the suggested increase, recent sentences for sexual penetration on a victim under 12 years has attracted more than 10 years as reflected in the cited cases. 

17.	In the present case because of its rarity a sentence of 10 years is appropriate for each offence and should be served cumulatively because the offences were committed on two victims even though they were in the one transaction. 

18.	From the 20 years sentence the period in pre-sentence custody shall be deducted and the prisoner shall serve the balance at CIS Buimo. 

Lawyer for the State: 	Public Prosecutor
Lawyer for the defence: 	Public Solicitor