You are here:
PacLII >>
Databases >>
High Court of Solomon Islands >>
2022 >>
[2022] SBHC 9
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Decisions
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
R v Natei [2022] SBHC 9; HCSI-CRC 125 of 2017 (2 May 2022)
HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Case name: | R v Natei |
|
|
Citation: |
|
|
|
Date of decision: | 2 May 2022 |
|
|
Parties: | Regina v Walter Natei |
|
|
Date of hearing: | 6 April 2022 |
|
|
Court file number(s): | 125 of 2017 |
|
|
Jurisdiction: | Criminal |
|
|
Place of delivery: |
|
|
|
Judge(s): | Bird; PJ |
|
|
On appeal from: |
|
|
|
Order: | 1. The defendant is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on count1. 2. The defendant is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on count 2. 3. I direct that the sentences are to be served concurrently. 4. I further direct that the time spent in custody be deducted from total sentence. 5. Right of appeal |
|
|
Representation: | Mrs. Margret Suifa’asia for the Crown Mr. Henry Kausimae for the Defendant |
|
|
Catchwords: |
|
|
|
Words and phrases: |
|
|
|
Legislation cited: | Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 [cap 26] S 136F, S 138 (1) (a) & (b) |
|
|
Cases cited: | |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Criminal Case No. 125 of 2017
REGINA
V
WALTER NATEI
Date of Hearing: 6 April 2022
Date of Decision: 2 May 2022
Mrs. Margret Suifa’asia for the Crown
Mr. Henry Kausimae for the Defendant
SENTENCE
Bird PJ:
- On the 25th March 2022, you were convicted after trial of the offence of attempt rape contrary to section 136F (3) of the Penal Code (cap 26) as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and
one count of indecent act contrary to section 138 (1) (a) & (b) of the Act. You now appear before me for sentence.
- I must tell you that the maximum penalty for the offence of attempt rape is one of 15 years imprisonment. For the offence of indecent
act, is an imprisonment term of 5 years. I am also minded to note that the maximum penalty is normally reserved for the most serious
of cases. The sentences that I will impose upon you will depend on the peculiar circumstances of your case. On behalf of the crown,
Mrs Suifa’asia submitted that you misrepresented both victims in this case. You told the victims that the shark devil was in
them and that you needed to cure them from it. Believing what you told them, they agreed to be cured by you. They both did not agree
as to how you conducted the curing and they both felt very offended.
- In our Solomon Islands culture, it is not right for a man to touch a woman’s body. In your case, you sucked on Mrs Cheffers
right thigh, above her knees and on her right chest above her breast. The parts that you sucked are sensitive parts of a woman’s
body and no man is allowed to suck and touch them without the woman’s consent.
- You also lied to Ms Chabiri by telling her that you must have sexual intercourse with her in order to cure her from the devil. It
was fortunate that she struggled with you and was successful in restraining you.
- I have heard from your lawyer that you are now 55 years old. You have 6 children. You are separated from your wife and you are looking
after two of your younger children. You have no formal education but helped to sustain your family by driving buses and taxis and
doing casual jobs if and when available. You have no previous conviction on sexual related cases and that you can be treated as a
first offender in that regard. However, having stated those personal circumstances, I am also minded to note the view of the court
in the case of Mulele v DPP and Poini v DPP [1985-1986] SILR 145 in which the court was of the view that in sexual offences cases, matters personal to the offender are likely to have less impact
on sentence than in other serious crime.
- I am also urged to note that you have co-operated with the police. I have also noted that you have complied with all your bail conditions
until finalisation of your case. I have noted that the offences were committed in July 2016, more than 5 years ago. You were committed
to this court on the 16th February 2017. The original information was filed on the 1st November 2017, 9 months after committal. Amended information was filed on the 9th November 2021 which led to the trial of the matter. After having said that, it is not your fault that the case was delayed for several
years. That goes in your favour. I have noted that the offences committed are on two separate victims, however, they were a result
of a single transaction. I am therefore of the view that any sentences imposed are to be served concurrently.
- Having considered all of the relevant circumstances in your case and for the offence of attempt rape, I put your starting point at
4 years imprisonment. For the aggravating feature discussed, I increase the sentence by 1 year. For the mitigating feature and especially
for the delay in the finalisation of your case, I reduce that sentence by 2 years. Total sentence to serve is one of one of 3 years
imprisonment. For the offence of indecent act, I put the starting point at 2 years imprisonment. For the aggravating features, I
would increase the sentence by 1 year. For the delay in the prosecution of the case, I reduce the sentence by 2 years. Total sentence
to serve is one of 12 months imprisonment.
Orders of the court
- The defendant is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment on count1.
- The defendant is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on count 2.
- I direct that the sentences are to be served concurrently.
- I further direct that the time spent in custody be deducted from total sentence.
- Right of appeal
THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2022/9.html