HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Hogromana	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	25 February 2021	
		
Parties: 	Regina v David Hogromana	
		
Date of hearing: 	15 February 2021	
		
Court file number(s): 	276 of 2020	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Bird J	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. The defendant is convicted on 2 counts of having sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years old contrary to section 139 (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.
2. The defendant is hereby sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on count 1.
3. The defendant is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on count 2.
4. The sentence on count 2 is to be served concurrent with count 1.	
		
Representation: 	Ms. Patricia Tabepuda for the Prosecution
Mr. Lazarus Waroka for the Accused 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 section 139 (1) (a)	
		
Cases cited:	Mulele v Director of Public Prosecution and Poini v Director of Public Prosecution [1986] SBCA 6
Pana v Regina [2013] SBCA 19	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No.276 of 2020

REGINA 

V

DAVID HOGROMANA

Date of Hearing: 15 February 2021
Date of Decision: 25 February 2021

Ms. Patricia Tabepuda for the Prosecution
Mr. Lazarus Waroka for the Accused
SENTENCE 
Bird PJ:
1. 	By information filed on the 5th May 2020, the defendant Mr. David Hogromana was indicted with two counts of having sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years contrary to section 139 (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016. Upon being arraigned, the defendant had entered guilty pleas to both charges.
2. 	The offence for which you are charged is very serious and carries a maximum term of life imprisonment.
3. 	The facts of your case are that you and the complainant are both from Kologaro Village, Isabel Province. You are said to be the complainant’s grandfather. You were 57 years old at the time of offending and the complainant was 11 years old.
4. 	I am told that between the 28th February 2019 and 1st April 2019, the complainant was walking home after playing with other children on the beach when she saw you sitting beside the road. You then pulled the complainant to a nearby bush, where you undressed her and laid her on the ground. You then widened the complainant’s legs and licked her vagina and used your figures to play with her vagina until you were satisfied. You then gave to the complainant one yellow plastic containing five butter biscuits and six coconut biscuits. You also told the complainant not to tell anyone about what you did to her and went away. The complainant got dressed and also left.
5. 	On the 26th April 2019, the complainant was walking home from school with her sister Helen when they met you. You ordered Helen to go back home and you were alone with the complainant. You removed the complainant’s uniform and told her to lay down. You widened her legs and licked her vagina and used your figures to play with her vagina. You also kissed her mouth, chin and forehead and sucked her breasts. After that you gave the complainant 1 lolly and a five dollar note.
6. 	On that occasion, a passer-by, Mr. Hudson Roetei saw what you did to the complainant and reported it to the complainant’s parents. When asked by her mother, the complainant confirmed to her what you did to her. You were then reported to the police and was arrested and charged.
7. 	In their sentencing submission, I am urged by Ms. Tabepuda, of counsel for the prosecution to take note of the comments of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mulele v DPP and Poini v DPP [1986] SBCA 6, (1985-1986) SILR 145. In that case, the Court of Appeal had stated that save as each case must depend on its own facts, matters that should be generally considered included age disparity, abuse of position of trust, subsequent pregnancy and character of the girl herself. 
8. 	Having noted those principles, I am told that one of the notable aggravating features in your offending is age disparity. I have noted that you were 57 years old then and the complainant was only 11 years old. The age difference between you was 46 years. At such a ripe old age, you could have been able to control your sexual emotions. You should have respect for children like the complainant. They are not your sex objects or play toys. They have as much rights as you do. You must have regard and respect for children.
9. 	It is further submitted on behalf of the prosecution that there is a breach of trust in your offending which goes to the gravity of the said offending. You are an uncle to the complainant’s father so you are the complainant’s grandfather. As a grandfather, your paramount duty is to safeguard the security and total wellbeing of the complainant. You have turned around and abused the complainant for your own selfish sexual gratification.
10. 	I am also informed that you have committed the same type of offending on the complainant on two separate occasions. As if it was not enough, you have sexually abused the complainant more than once. I have also noted from the facts of your case that you gave to the complainant, biscuits, lolly and money. That indicates that what you did was pre-meditated. You have also lured the complainant to take part in the commission of the offending.
11. 	On your behalf, I have heard from your lawyer that you have pleaded guilty to the offending at first opportunity. That shows not only remorse but that you have own up to the offending and you are willing to take responsibility of your actions. Your guilty plea also saves time and resources from conducting a full trial of the matter.
12. 	You are a first offender so you are a person without a criminal history. You have lived a life free of crime for most part of your life until this unfortunate incident when you have allowed yourself to be overtaken by your own selfish sexual lust.
13. 	I have heard that you are a village chief. In our Solomon Islands communities, our chiefs are afforded respect because of the positions they hold. Your behaviour towards the complainant is not one that is expected of you as a chief.
14. 	I am also told that you have been remanded in custody since 14th June 2020. You also have a pre-existing health condition. It is confirmed in your medical report that you have diabetes and you are currently receiving medication for that condition.
15. 	I am guided by the case authorities cited by both counsel for the prosecution and the defence. Of particular reference is the case of Pana v Regina [2013] SBCA 19, SICOA- CRAC 13 of 2013 that sets out guidelines on starting point of like offences.
16. 	Taking into account the guidelines in the above case, together with the aggravating features in your offending, I put your starting point at 6 years imprisonment.
17. 	Having taken into account the mitigating features together with your current medical condition, I reduce that term by 2 years. I therefore sentence you to 4 years imprisonment on count 1 and 4 years imprisonment on count 2. Sentences are to be served concurrent to each other. 
Orders of the court
1.	The defendant is convicted on 2 counts of having sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years old contrary to section 139 (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016.
2.	The defendant is hereby sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on count 1.
3.	The defendant is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment on count 2.
4.	The sentence on count 2 is to be served concurrent with count 1.
5.	Time spent in pre-trial custody is to be deducted from the total sentence.
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge