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

R v Rasa [2025] SBHC 126; HCSI-CRC 349 of 2024 (4 August 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 349 of 2024

REX

V

EDMOND RICHARD RASA

Date of Hearing: 1 August 2025
Date of Decision: 4 August 2025

Counsel: Ms Mono for the Crown
Counsel; Pulekera for the Defendant

VERDICT AND SENTENCE

Introduction and Background facts

1. Ms. Dymphna Pua’ara comes from Pipisu village, West Are ‘Are, Malaita Province. She was 14 years old in the year 2023. She was a Form 1 student at Tolunatete Community High School (TCHS) in East/Central Guadalcanal. Ms. Pua’ara and her sister Jerolyn Wariraha were residing with their cousin sister, Madam Hilda Ninipua, a teacher at TCHS in the year 2023.
2. Ms. Dymphna Pua’ara (DP) complains that Edmond Richard Rasa (ERR), 28 years old in the year 2023, from Talavisu village, a nurse at Verani clinic, Aola, East/Central Guadalcanal, had sexual intercourse with her.
3. It is alleged that ERR, at Toluna Tete area, East/Central Guadalcanal, on 19/10/2023, did have sexual intercourse with DP, a child under the age of 15 years, namely 14 years old, by pushing his penis into her vagina. By amended information filed on 30/07/2025, after nolle prosequi notice was entered, ERR was subsequently charged for sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years contrary to Section 139 (1) (b) of the 2016 Act^[1]. The original and more serious charge of rape was dropped.
4. I arraigned ERR on the 1/08/2025, on the amended charge, premised on agreed facts. ERR entered an early guilty plea, agreeing to the settled facts that were read to him (agreed facts are produced here below from paragraphs 5 to 16). I heard sentencing and mitigation submissions and adjourned to deliver the sentence on 4/08/2025.
5. On 19^th October 2023, at around 7: 00 pm in the evening, the complainant, her sister Jerolyn Wariraha, her cousin sister Madam Hilda Ninipua and two other students were sitting down, telling stories at Madam Hilda Ninipua’s house.
6. The defendant and another person named Kennedy arrived and joined the group and they continued telling stories. The defendant shared stories about his experiences when he was a student.
7. Madam Hilda left to check on her motu at the Head Master’s house. After she left, the defendant told Jerolyn and Kennedy to go and purchase cigarettes for him.
8. The defendant then told the complainant to follow him to Peter’s house to collect his beers. The complainant followed the defendant to Peter’s house.
9. They walked until they reached a copra shed by the side of the road. It was already dark, around 8:30 pm. The defendant instructed the complainant to go ahead to Peter’s house while he waited at the copra shed. The complainant started walking towards Peter’s house. The defendant called out to her, saying for her to come back quickly to him.
10. When the complainant came back, the defendant asked her if he could have sexual intercourse with her and attempted to kiss her.
11. The defendant then led her into some nearby bushes beside the road. There, he touched her breast and instructed her to undress and lie down on her back. The complainant did as she was instructed.
12. The defendant then removed his penis from his trousers, climbed on top of the complainant, widened her legs, pushed his penis into her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her. The complainant felt the defendant’s penis in her vagina. It was very painful.
13. After that, the defendant stood up, wore his trousers and walked towards the copra shed. The complainant got up and followed him back to Madam Hilda’s house.
14. When they reached Madam Hilda’s house, the complainant went and stood beside her sister, Jerolyn and cried. Jerolyn asked why she was crying and why she and the defendant did not return quickly. The complainant reported to Jerolyn what the defendant did to her.
15. Jerolyn then reported to Hilda about what ERR did to DP. Madam Hilda took DP to Aola clinic, the next day (20/10/2023).
16. Doctor Metolo examined DP. Doctor Metolo conducted a genital examination and confirmed that there was ragged posterior hymen and redness on the vulva. After that she referred DP to Henderson Police and the matter was subsequently reported. DP stayed at Seif Ples Rove for two weeks to receive counselling.

Gravity of the offending

17. The maximum penalty for this crime is 15 years imprisonment where the child is between 13 years and 15 years of age, as in the present case (Section 139 (1) (b) of the 2016 Act). Ms. DP was 14 years old in October 2023. The 15 years prescribed punishment, reflects parliament’s intent to deter and condemn sexual abuse of children under 15 years as a serious offence. However, the court has the power to impose a lesser sentence term.
18. The gravity of this crime is that, a young female Form 1 student, was sexually abused. That alone will cause much trauma and psychological disturbance to a young girl who just left her family to begin her education journey at a school far from home (see the victim’s impact statement for the kind of disturbances she went through, one of them being depression).
19. DP stayed at Seif Place, where she underwent counselling support instead of attending classes for two weeks. Two weeks is a lot of time to miss classes. The 2016 Act was enacted to protect vulnerable girls and women from sexual abuse by men, who in most cases, are in a domestic relationship with their female child victims. In here ERR is a friend of DP and her cousin sister Madam Ninipua. ERR frequently visits and eats at Madam Ninipua’s house.

Starting point sentence

20. The starting point sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 15 years is 8 years (Sinatau and Pige, both Court of Appeal 2023 binding judgments). The same starting point sentence applies to sexual offences under Section 136F and 139 of the 2016 Act, in a non-contested matter for a child under the age of consent (Sinatau). The age of consent according to pana v Regina, Court of Appeal 2013, is 16 years. DP was 14 years old and this is a non-contested matter. Hence, I will put the starting point sentence at 8 years.

Aggravating factors

21. I determine the following serious aggravating factors present in this matter: -
    • (i) Age disparity – ERR was 28 years old and DP was 14 years in October 2023. Age difference of 14 years. As an adult friend ERR was responsible and accountable to protect DP from this kind of offending.
    • (ii) Pre-planning – ERR planned all these. He cannot say it was a coincidence. On the night of offending, ERR was with DP, Kennedy, DP’s cousin sister teacher Ninipua, DP’s sister Jerolyn and two other students telling stories at Madam Ninipua’s house. Madam Ninipua left to get their food. ERR sent the other boys away to get his cigarette and asked DP to accompany him to take his beers. And then he had sexual intercourse with her along the road, in the bush area next to the copra drier. The plan that ERR hatched to entice DP into having sex that night is seen in paragraphs 5 to 10 above – tell stories, send the others away to buy his cigarette and asking DP to accompany him get his beers at night. Taking a young female student to get beers at night? This is disgusting. Why can’t he just go alone? Is the beer too heavy to carry?
    • (iii) Weak and vulnerable – Children are weak and vulnerable. They can’t say no or discern things as mature people do. Perpetrators can take advantage of this weakness and vulnerability to sexually exploit children to satisfy their sexual gratification. This is what happen here as seen in the plan ERR hatched to seduce DP into having sex with her (repeat paragraph 5 to 10 above).
    • (iv) Physical harm – DP sustained injuries to her vagina (torn hymen and redness in the vulva). She had sex in an unplanned, unprepared and unaccepted manner. The very act of unplanned, uninvited, unprepared and unwelcomed sexual intercourse is physical violation of a victim and physical harm is inherent in it.
    • (v) Young age – DP is a very young child in terms of her sexual purity, virginity and intactness. These are cultural, religious and moral standards highly treasured in young girls. We look at young age in terms of these moral values and not the number of years in their medical record book.
    • (vi) Psychological harm and trauma – I must always take judicial notice of the long-term impact of sexual abuses on female child victims, despite lack of professional evidence from a psychologist.
    • (vii) Isolated location – It was an isolated place under cover of darkness because the offence took place at 8:30 pm on 19/10/2023 next to a copra shed in a bushy area along the road. Isolated location means DP cannot access help or escape. For ERR it means he had space, time and the liberty to achieve his sexually electrifying desires without interruption.
    • (viii) Distracted education – DP was a Form 1 student. At Form 1, DP was still settling down at her new school far from home. I have no doubt that she was distracted by the sexual abuse that ERR did to her. It is very shameful for a young female child to have sex with a married man. DP stayed at Seif Place for two weeks to receive counselling instead of attending classes. In the victim impact statement I noted above that she was depressed.
    • (ix) Disrespect to visitors and guests – Ms. DP, her sister Jerolyn and their cousin sister Madam Ninipua arrived at ERR’s place as visitors and guest migrant workers and students. They have migrated from their village to ERR’s place/village (from Malaita to Guadalcanal). In custom, a temporary guest at our village is somebody we must treat with respect, pure love and great care and sensitivity. ERR breached that customary obligation and it is an aggravating factor against him. We must continue to cherish our worthy customs.
22. For all of the above 9 serious aggravating factors combined, I will uplift the start point sentence by 7 more years (close to 1-year increase for each aggravating factor). Increases due to serious aggravation should be made in years and not merely in weeks and months (Bade, Court of Appeal 2023). That will bring me to 15 years aggravated head sentence (the maximum available) before mitigation.

Mitigating factors

23. Then I also identify the following mitigating factors to reduce the inflated head sentence downwards: -
    • (i) Early guilty plea – 30 percent reduction (Piqe, Court of Appeal 2023) comes to 4.5 years rounded to 5 years. This is a big reduction because an early guilty plea brings multiple benefits to all parties involved. To the court it saves trial time. To the victim it spares her from the trauma in having to recount her sexual ordeals in the witness box. From the perpetrator it shows he was remorseful and accepted responsibility for his wrong doing.
    • (ii) First time offender with no previous convictions – 1 year.
    • (iii) Cooperation with the police – This is why the case is concluded quickly. I give 1 year.
    • (iv) Rehabilitation – ERR is a young offender in his 30s. He has a long life to live. He has the potential to learn whilst in the correctional centre and to reintegrate back into society to become a better person again. I give 1 year.
24. The final head sentence I will impose after mitigation is 7 years. An early guilty plea is the mitigating factor, which saved the day for the defendant, in terms of big reductions to the aggravated head sentence. Sexual offences against women and girls are on the rise in Solomon Islands. The courts continue to emphasize that the increasing prevalence of this kind of sexual offending in our society calls for deterrent sentences.

Conclusion and Orders

25. This court has a duty to see that sentences it imposed give out a powerful deterrent factor to prevent the commission of such offences. Offenders must receive harsher punishments to mark society’s outrage and denunciation against sexual abuse of women and girls. The main purpose of the punishment I give here is to condemn your action and to protect the public from the commission of such crimes by making it clear to you and others with similar impulses, that anyone who yields to this kind of crime will meet with severe punishments
26. Mr. ERR, I will convict you for the charge of having sexual intercourse with a child under 15 years. I will sentence you to 7 years imprisonment subject to pre-trial detention time deductions as determinable by the correctional authority. I heard submissions that this should be 4 days only. This sentence term becomes effective from today’s date (4/08/2025).

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

^[1] The 2016 Act, refers to the Penal Code Act (Cap 26) as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences)

Act 2016 (No. 3 of 2016).