High Court of Solomon Islands

Criminal Case Number 124-04

REGINA

-v-

GEORGE RAHA

Hearing: 9th May, 11th, 12th, 18th May 2005
Judgement: 31st May 2005
Sentence: 31st May 2005

P. Little and R. Iomea for the Prosecution
C. Ashley for the Defendant

Sentence: In R. v. Ligiau and Dori1, ("Ligiau’s Case") his Lordship CJ Ward adopted the views expressed by Lord Lane CJ in R. v. Billam (1986) 1 WLR 349, in which his Lordship sets the standards/practice of sentence in rape cases. I quote:

"For rape committed by an adult without any aggravating or mitigating features, a figure of five years should be taken as the starting point in a contested case. Where a rape is committed by two or more men acting together, or by a man who has broken into or otherwise gained access to a place where the victim is living, or by a person who is in a position of responsibility towards the victim, or by a person who abducts the victim and holds her captive, the starting point should be eight years.

At the top of the scale comes the defendant who has carried out what might be described as a campaign of rape, committing the crime upon a member of different women or girls. He represents a more than ordinary danger and a sentence of 15 years or more may be appropriate.

Where the defendant’s behaviour has manifested perverted or psychopathic tendencies or gross personality disorder, and where he is likely, if at large, to remain a danger to women for an indefinite time, a life sentence will not be inappropriate.

The crime should in any event be treated as a aggravated by any of the following factors:

(a) violence is used over and above the force necessary to commit the rape;

(b) a weapon is used to frighten or wound the victim;

(c) the rape is repeated;

(d) the rape has been carefully planned;

(e) the defendant has previous convictions of rape or other serious offences of a violent or sexual kind;

(f) the victim is subjected to further sexual indignities or perversions;

(g) the victim is either very old or very young;

(h) the effect upon the victim, whether physical or mental, is of special seriousness.

Where any one or more of these aggravating features are present, the sentence should be substantially higher than the figure suggested as the starting point."

In Ligiau’s Case, the victim was a 12 year old girl and the attempted rape committed on a 10 year old. The girls were threatened to be killed if they refused. In that case, the defendants admitted the offences on the very next day after the incident and had maintained their admissions right through to trial with guilty pleas. The learned Chief Justice gave in my respectful view, full discount for the guilty pleas, especially in recognising that these saved the victims any embarrassments and any unnecessary difficulties in having to recount and relive such frightening experiences. In particular that was especially important with respect to young victims and accepting that after almost a year before the matter came to court, it may have been difficult for the victims to give an accurate account of such incident. His Lordship accepted that the guilty pleas demonstrated genuine contrition and remorse and took that into account apart from the fact that the defendants in that case were first offenders and sentenced them to six years and five years respectively.

Whilst the victim in this case was not a young girl, the circumstances in which the offences were committed showed that the case was no less serious. There were aggravating features present; (i) the defendant was drunk when the offences were committed, (ii) violence was used; the defendant punched the victim on the mouth and caused her injuries apart from causing her fear and to be terrified of the Defendant. The wife of the Defendant gave evidence in which she told the court that the reason why she ran away from him that night was because she was frightened of him, that he might beat her up; (iii) this was coupled with indecent acts (iv) the Defendant at time of commission of offence was a police officer and had actually reached the rank of a Police Sergeant (v), the defendant was in a position of responsibility towards the victim, she was their house-girl and responsible for looking after their baby/child and to that extent he was obliged to look after her as well.

The starting point indicated in Ligiau’s case for this type of offence would have been around eight years. 

The Defendant does not have the benefit of a guilty plea, which would have reduced the sentence substantially. Having said that, I must balance the seriousness of the offences committed, with the fact, that the Defendant has had to wait a long time for his case to be tried before this court. The offence occurred in 2000, but did not reach the courts until March 2004. You then have had to wait until today for completion of your case. I note you have been interdicted by the Police on no pay since then and have had to struggle through in that time. I accept this has caused not only hardship but to a certain extent embarrassment which in a way is a form of punishment. You have also lost or perhaps consented to having your two children being kept in the custody of their mother, again causing some element of apprehension.

I have had benefit of your service record as a police officer, provided by Chief Supt. Sikua, Director of Corporate Services, which showed a colourful career and special mention of your courage and contribution to the Police Force and the country during the initial stages of the ethnic tension and resulting in your being rewarded with promotion to the rank of Sergeant. You have also received numerous commendation certificates for outstanding service. These show to me that but for this unfortunate incident your career path could have been very promising.

One of the factors that the court considers when imposing sentence is the prospects of rehabilitation. In my respectful view, you fall within that category and that influences me greatly in the sentence that I have decided to impose.

I note that you are a young man, and give credit for the fact that you have no previous convictions. I accept this was an unfortunate incident which occurred when under the influence of alcohol, and whilst not a mitigating factor, it only shows that getting drunk for whatever reason does not help, especially when there were already inherent problems in your marriage, that did not help; instead it only made things worse and one thing led to another, resulting in your conviction today of a serious offence.

Balancing those mitigating factors with the seriousness of the offences you have been charged with, I impose sentence as follows:

Rape: 3½ years imprisonment

Indecent Assault: 12 months imprisonment

Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm: 12 months imprisonment

All sentences to be made concurrent. The total period to be served is 3½ years.

You have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal if aggrieved by this sentence or your conviction.

The Court.

END NOTE:

1. 1985/1986 SILR 214 per Ward CJ at page 215