Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Regina v Teikamata [2012] SBHC 69; HCSI-CRC 75 of 2011 (17 July 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)

Criminal Case Number 75 of 2011

REGINA

-V-

GEORGE ISAAC TEIKAMATA

HEARING: 4th, 5th 7th June 2012
JUDGEMENT: 17th July 2012

A. E. Kelesi for the Crown.
S. Kalu for the Defendant.

Palmer CJ.

1. The defendant, George Isaac Teikamata is charged with one count of defilement contrary to section 142(1) of the Penal Code (cap. 26), which provides that:
   

"Any person who has unlawful sexual intercourse with any girl under the age of thirteen years is guilty of a felony, and shall be liable to imprisonment for life."

Subsection 142(3) provides that consent is not a defence to the act.

2. There are two main issues for determination in this case. The first one is the age of the complainant or the victim, and the second is the date or time of the alleged sexual encounter. There is no dispute that sexual encounters occurred between the victim and the defendant.
   

The age of the victim.

3. There were two birth dates, the 29th May 1996 and 29th March 1996 that had been referred to in the evidence. The defence say there is uncertainty and the Crown had failed to prove the date of birth of the victim as that of 29th May 1996.
   
4. The case for the prosecution on the other hand is that the correct birth date is that of 29th May 1996. This was supported by the victim herself and the second prosecution witness, the mother.
   
5. The defence argue that the birth date of 29th May 1996 should not be believed on the following grounds. First, the victim had told the police in an earlier statement that her date of birth was 29th March 1996. She told the court she had seen this date in a baby card which her mother had and so thought this was her birth date.
   
6. The defence also pointed out that in her evidence she had mentioned to a friend that she was 15 years old when asked in 2009. They say because she was uncertain the court should not readily believe her evidence regarding her date of birth.
   
7. The case for the prosecution however is quite strong and based on my finding of clear, consistent and solid evidence, which came from the mother.
   
8. The only challenge to her evidence and that of the victim was on the reliability of their memories whether they could recollect accurately the matters that they were giving evidence on or whether they may have forgotten.
   
9. The victim for instance when it was put to her about the inconsistent statements she had made about her birth date and age, she readily agreed that while her memory was not as good when it came to the issue about her age she did not resile from what she had said that her birth date was that of 29th May 1996.
   
10. The crucial evidence however came from the mother, who told the court in quite a clear and confident manner that the birth date of the victim was 29th May 1996.
    
11. In cross examination it was sought to discredit her recollection of the date of birth by suggesting to her that because she had told police in an earlier statement that the victim was 12 in 2010 and 11 in 2009 that her memory was not good. She however maintained that she knew all along what the correct birth date was but made those errors when mentioning what the age was.
    
12. I am satisfied I can rely on her evidence as accurate in that she gave her evidence in a very confident, sure and fluid manner. For instance, when she gave evidence about the names and birth dates of her children, she was able to state them in their respective order without any hesitation. She also could easily recall when her daughter went to school, which school, the year and month when she stopped going to school and the pain and struggle she endured to get her daughter back to her home. Her confidence and assurance came from the fact that she was the one who gave birth to her children and therefore knew exactly when they were born.
    
13. I am satisfied, her evidence of the correct birth date as that of 29th May 1996, can be relied on. She also had this formally recorded in an official birth certificate, which also supported her oral evidence. I find her to be an impressive witness, with a clear memory on the different dates of birth of her children. I am not satisfied her evidence on this had been discredited in cross examination.
    

Did the first sexual activity occur in March 2009?

14. The main defence argument in this is that her recollection on the date or time of the first sexual encounter should not be relied on as her memory of events was vague, uncertain and patchy.
    
15. The evidence adduced however by prosecution is quite clear, consistent and credible. The victim told the court she was in grade six at Kolo'ale School in 2009. She only attended school in the first term and then left. She told the court that she first attended school at St. John's School and then transferred to Kolo'ale School and repeated grade six.
    
16. Her evidence has been confirmed by the mother whose evidence has been virtually unchallenged. She told the court the victim attended grade six at St. John's school in 2008. She then arranged for her transfer to St. John's School in 2009 so that she could be closer to her.
    
17. She told the court that her daughter started off well initially in the first months of January and February but by March she had left school and was frequently seeing her friends at White River. She eventually moved out of their home and stayed with her friends at White River.
    
18. She told the court how she went to great lengths to find the victim and bring her back to stay at home and continue with her schooling but found this to be quite difficult and problematic. She told the court that there were days and nights when they would go in search for her but could not find her. It seemed that she was also avoiding them. It was during those times that she heard that she was going around with the defendant.
    

Assessment and conclusion of the evidence.

19. The defence in essence do not deny that sexual activity took place. They however sought to suggest that the evidence adduced by prosecution should not be relied on in view of the uncertainties expressed by the victim in relation to certain dates and events. For instance, the defence sought to highlight that she could not remember the month school started in 2009, when she finished school in St. John and when asked about where the defendant came from she could not say what province he was from and when they last hanged out together.
    
20. On the other hand, I am not satisfied it can be conclusively held that there was any uncertainty in the mind of the victim as to what month the first sexual encounter occurred. Under cross examination she expressly stated that she first went out with the defendant in the month of March, that she had only met him for about a week and then the first sexual encounter occurred thereafter. She denied any suggestions that they were merely friends for about 2-3 months before the first sexual encounter took place.
    
21. I have had the opportunity to assess their evidence carefully and satisfied that this evidence can be relied on. Both witnesses gave clear and consistent evidence. The victim's recollection of the month they met and how soon after the first sexual encounter occurred to be clear and certain. She denied any suggestions that no sexual activity occurred that month or that she was going out with the defendant for quite a long time before any sexual activity occurred. She told the court they met in March and shortly after that went out together. This was when the first sexual encounter occurred. She told the court it was only about a week after this meeting that the first sexual encounter occurred.
    
22. This evidence is consistent with the evidence of the mother that during the month of March she had virtually left school and was living in White River.
    
23. I am not satisfied this evidence on the crucial matters had been discredited or rendered unbelievable or unreliable by defence. Both witnesses maintained their version of the crucial times and events and were not shaken in cross examination. I am satisfied I can rely on their version of events and accept as true what they told the court about the elements of the offence.
    
24. I am satisfied prosecution has established the onus of proof on the elements in this case and I convict the defendant accordingly.
    

Orders of the Court:

1. Find the defendant guilty of the offence of defilement and enter conviction.

The Court.