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

R v Taro [2024] SBHC 172; HCSI-CRC 189 of 2024 (25 October 2024)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 189 of 2024

REX

V

ROBERT TARO

Date of Hearing: 8^th October 2024 (Last written submission filed).
Date of Sentence: 25^th October 2024.

Counsel; Mr. Beto and Ms. Rehomora for the Crown.
Counsel; Mr. Houa for the Defendant.

Keniapisia PJ

SENTENCE

1. Mr. Taro, I convicted you for two out of the four counts on the 30/09/2024. The first conviction count is indecent assault on Maeva. The second conviction count is rape on the same victim Maeva. Maeva is actually your step daughter.
2. The maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment. Rape took place in the year 2018. The maximum penalty for indecent assault is 15 years. Indecent assault took place in the year 2015/2016. Rape is the more serious of the two offences.
3. The issue is “What is the appropriate punishment for the two offence convictions?”

Start point sentence for the serious charge of rape

4. I will start with the more serious count of rape. The seriousness of this offence is reflected in the punishment Parliament prescribed. Parliament set the maximum penalty at life imprisonment. However, the court has power to impose a lesser sentence term.
5. The starting point sentence for rape or unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years is 8 years according to Sinatau Court of Appeal 2023. Complainant was 10 years old, when Taro raped her in the year 2018. Hence the victim was a child under 15 years and the starting point sentence should be 8 years.

Aggravating factors

6. I determine the following aggravating factors: -
   • (i) Position of trust breached – Mr. Taro is the step father (father) of the victim, Maeva. Mr. Taro has a moral fatherly duty and ought to vigilantly guard and protect his step daughter Maeva’s sexual intactness, virginity and dignity from sexual abuse. Taro breached this duty, when he turned on his daughter to satisfy his sexual gratification. This is a serious and regrettable inhuman breach.
   • (ii) Psychological harm and trauma – The Court should always take judicial notice of the long-term impact and trauma on the victim despite the lack of medical and professional evidence (Bonuga, Court of Appeal 2014). Despite lack of observable physical harm, in all rape or sexual offence cases, the level of psychological harm that creates ongoing issues for the victim, is well documented and can be taken judicial notice of as per Bonuga (Liufirara, Court of Appeal 2022).
   • (iii) Abuse committed in the home and at night – Maeva was inside the comfort of her room at night, where she should be sleeping and was entitled to security and safety from Taro, her father, in their house at Matu village. Instead Taro turned that safety net in the home into a crime scene for his stepdaughter.
   • (iv) Physical harm – Taro did not use a weapon or apply physical harm to rape Maeva or there was no evidence of physical harm. However, there was implied vaginal damage because Maeva was not ready for sexual intercourse. She was sexually terrorised. Taro entered her room, went on top of her, shut her mouth, overpowered her and then had sexual intercourse with her. The very act of rape is physical violation of a victim and physical harm is inherent in it (Liufirara, Court of Appeal 2022).
   • (v) Pre-planning – Sexual abuse that happens to a daughter in the home under the care and custody of her father must be pre-planned because this is something that is seriously wrong and should not be happening in the home. Therefore, the father to be doing this unusual thing in the home needs some kind of prior thoughts, preplanning and careful execution of plans on the part of the accused. Accused cannot say it was a coincidence.
   • (vi) Disparity of age – Taro was over 30 years old, while Maeva was 10 years old at the time of rape in 2018. The age gap here is over 20 years. In 2015/16, at time of first offending, Maeva was around 7 years old. As an adult and as the father, Taro was expected to protect Maeva from this type of offending (Ramaia case).
   • (vii) Young age – Maeva was 10 years of age in 2018, when you raped her. According to Sinatau, Court of Appeal 2023 the age of the victim can be taken into account both in setting a starting point and when considering aggravating factors. The aggravating effect will usually be greater, the younger the child (victim). At 10 years your daughter was not even a teenager. She was considered a very young child/girl in terms of her sexual intactness, purity, virginity and dignity, all of which are highly treasured for young girls under 15 or 18 years.
   • (viii) Repetitive offending – Repetitive harm occasioned on the same person is a serious aggravation. Rape is the third count in the amended information.
7. For all of the above 8 serious aggravating factors combined, I will increase the start point sentence by 8 more years (one year for each aggravating factor). Increases due to serious aggravating factors should be in years and not merely in weeks and months (Bade, Court of Appeal, 2023). That will bring me to 16 years head sentence before mitigation.

Mitigating factors

8. Then I will make reductions for mitigating factors. The first one is first time offender with no previous conviction. I give 3 years reduction. For cooperation with police and personal circumstances, I will give another 3 years reduction. I only consider personal circumstances because this is a case where the aggravating factors far outweigh the mitigating factors. There are fewer mitigating factors to consider. The final total head sentence I will give for the serious offence of rape is 10 years.

Less serious count of indecent assault

9. For the count on indecent assault the crown submits that I can impose a sentence of 2 years by comparison to similar past sentences for similar offences. Crown submit that there are no sentencing tariffs and guidelines for this offence. Crown’s submission is sensible and legally sound, in my considered view. I will give a sentence of 2 years accordingly.

Consecutive or Concurrent sentence?

10. Whether or not the two sentences should run consecutive or concurrently, I will make the two sentences to run concurrently. Hence the sentence for indecent assault will run concurrent with the sentence for rape. The reason is because the sentence for a series of assaults or sexual assaults in this case, against the same person even though spread over a lengthy period of time should properly be made concurrent (Laui v DPP [1987] SBHC 4).

Conclusion and Orders

11. As I stand back and look at the sentence imposed, I can say it is an appropriate sentence for an offence that carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Fathers or step fathers sexually abusing their daughters is becoming more frequent in the sexual offending cases coming before the courts. The 2016 Act, Parliament offered a legislative frame work to protect girls and women from sexual abuse by introducing new sexual offences and increasing the penalty. Court must stand with Parliament to achieve the same objective by imposing sentences that tell the offender what he did is seriously unacceptable and to the wider community it becomes a deterrence to any like-minded offenders.
12. Court orders are: -
    • (i) Impose 10 years custodial sentence for the count of rape.
    • (ii) Impose 2 years custodial sentence for the count of indecent assault.
    • (iii) Sentence for indecent assault to be served concurrently with the sentence for rape.
    • (iv) Taro will therefore serve 10 years imprisonment custodial sentence term.
    • (v) Any pre-trial custody entitlement will be accounted for.
    • (vi) This sentence will start to run from 30 September 2024.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE