HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	R v Pawi 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	7 November 2025	
		
Parties: 	Rex v Jay Francis Pawi 	
		
Date of hearing: 	31 October 2025	
		
Court file number(s): 	530 of 2023	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Criminal 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Keniapisia; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. Mr. Pawi, I sentence you to 10 years imprisonment. You are entitled to deductions for pre-trial detention as the Correctional Service may determine from their records. You are also entitled to appeal the sentence term imposed.	
		
Representation: 	Ms. Mono for the Crown 
Ms. Palmer for the Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendments) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 S 136F (1) (a) and (b), 	
		
Cases cited:	R v Sinatau [2023] SBCA 38, Bade v R [2023] SBCA 39, Bonuga v R [2014] SBCA 22, 	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 530 of 2023

REX

V

JAY FRANCIS PAWI

Date of Hearing: 31 October 2025
Date of Decision: 7 November 2025

Counsel: Ms. Mono for the Crown 
Counsel Ms. Palmer for the Defendant 
SENTENCE 
1. 	By verdict delivered on 13.10.25, I convicted you, Mr. Pawi, for rape of the victim Loreen Wauo (11 year-old female child). It is time for me to determine the appropriate punishment. The crime you committed carries a maximum punishment of life-imprisonment as prescribed by the legislature (Section 136F (1) (a) and (b) of the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016). However, the court has the power to impose a lesser sentence term in the exercise of its discretion based on the merits of each case.
2. 	Rape is a very serious crime as prima facie reflected in the punishment of life imprisonment. It demonstrates that the legislature’s motive is to deter and condemn those who choose to commit rape or sexual abuse of a child under 15 years. Rape is also serious because it will have a long-term daunting impact on the victim (shame and stigma). Loreen Wauo’s moral intactness and sanctity, virginity and sense of belonging or pride or human dignity as a young girl have been taken away rather ruthlessly. The same impact extends to her family as well, as I noted from the evidence of the mother at trial.
3. 	The Court of Appeal recognised the seriousness of sexual abuse of a child under 15 years by setting a higher starting point sentence of 8 years (Sinatau, Court of Appeal, 2023). I will set the starting point sentence at 8 years because Loreen is 11 years old at the time of offending. Defence did not dispute this Court of Appeal binding tariff.   
4. 	I determine the following serious aggravating factors from the evidence before me:-
(i) 	Young age of the victim. 
(ii) 	Age disparity. 
(iii) 	Vulnerability and weakness. 
(iv) 	Pre-planning. 
(v) 	Threat, intimidation and violent sexual intercourse. 
(vi) 	Psychological harm and trauma. 
(vii) 	Physical harm and injuries. 
(viii) 	Abuse committed in the home – the shower room should be a safe place for the victim. Instead, the defendant turned that safe place into a crime scene for the victim.  
5. 	For all of the above 8 serious aggravating factors combined, I will uplift the starting point sentence by 8 more years (one year for each serious aggravating factor). Increases due to serious aggravation should be made in years and not merely in weeks and months (Bade, Court of Appeal, 2023). The aggravated head sentence before mitigation is 16 years. 
6. 	The following mitigating factors will reduce the aggravated head sentence downwards:-
(i)	First time offender with no previous conviction – 1 year. 
(ii)	Compensation – 1 year. 
(iii)	Rehabilitation – 2 years. 
(iv)	Young age offender – 1 year. 
(v)	Personal circumstances – 1 year. 
7. 	I will impose 10 years sentence term (16 years aggravated head sentence minus 6 years mitigated head sentence). This is a case where the aggravating factors far outweigh the mitigating factors. That is why I considered personal circumstances in mitigation. Normally personal circumstances of the accused should have less effect in mitigation for sexual offences (Rex v Wilfred Ba’ai, [2023], SBCA 9).
8. 	As I stand back and look at the circumstances of this case, and ask whether the merits justify the sentence term imposed, I can say the sentence is justified in terms of the seriousness of the offence (life-time imprisonment as the maximum), the long term impact on the victim (the impact statement shows the victim is no longer interested in her schooling and is experiencing stigma and shame) and the need to give out a deterrent message to the accused and the public. This sentence term reflects the gravity of the offence and accords well with Parliament’s legislative intent to protect children from sexual abuse under the 2016 Act referred to above. 
9. 	This court has a duty to see that the punishment it imposed gives out a powerful deterrent message to prevent 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 face severe punishment. 
10. 	Mr. Pawi, I sentence you to 10 years imprisonment. You are entitled to deductions for pre-trial detention as the Correctional Service may determine from their records. You are also entitled to appeal the sentence term imposed. 
THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE