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

R v Sialo [2025] SBHC 25; HCSI-CRC 55 of 2023 (14 March 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 55 of 2023

REX

V

JARET SIALO

Date of Hearing: 4 March 2025 (Last Written Submission)
Date of Sentence: 14 March 2025

Counsel: Ms Naqu for the Crown
Counsel: Mr Harunari for the Accused

Keniapisia; PJ

SENTENCE

1. By verdict delivered on 20/12/2024, I convicted you of the offence of rape contrary to Section 136F (1) (a) and (b) of the 2016 Act^[1]. Rape is a serious offence, as it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (Section 136F (1) (a) and (b)). However, the Court has power to impose a lesser sentence term.
2. The starting point sentence in a contested rape trial for an adult victim is 8 years (Bade-v-R 2023, SBCA 39, 13^th October 2023). Sharita, the victim here was an adult of 25 years old at the time of offending. Counsel agreed it should be 8 years.
3. I determine the following serious aggravating factors: -
   • (i) Pre-planning – There was a lot of pre-planning, tricks, deception and display of wicked mind by Sialo prior to raping Sharita. The day before the incident (7/02/2022) Sialo met Sharita and her sister at Lunga. He offered them a free ride to town in his car, acting as a Good Samaritan. He told them his name was Shane Wickham. I note that the name Wickham is well-known in Honiara, Western Province and Solomon Islands. Then Sialo said he works at the Forum Fisheries Agency. He also said he has some cargoes to clear at the Ports Authority (wharf). These personal background information were all false. They were meant to lure Sharita and her sister. And the evidence showed the deception worked. This is why Sialo later that day (7/02/2022) called the two sisters back by mobile phone and asked to borrow $1,000.00 from them, which they did, falling for his fake status, fake generosity, tricks and wicked plans. The tricks continued the next day (8/02/2022). Sialo called to borrow a further $1000.00. Sharita was curious and wanted to know further information about this man who appeared as a good friend but was asking for money on two consecutive days. Sharita went and met Sialo at Jasmine shop, Vura 1. Sharita gave him $100.00 only. Sialo asked Sharita to come inside his car. They will take a ride to fuel up at Ranadi and then he will drop her back. Sharita reluctantly sat in the front seat and Sialo drove away quickly. She had no chance to come out. Instead of going to Ranadi, Sialo stopped at the front of the Kausimae building and began displaying his real wicked intentions to have sexual intercourse with Sharita. And as I found in the verdict, he created fear in Sharita’s mind by driving at high speed which resulted in Sharita submitting her body to Sialo to sexually feast on. This is not only pre-planning, but a wicked person living out in the community. I mean, you can have sex with a girl or woman but not through tricks and deceptive luring tactics, threat and force. To me this is no different from cool-blooded murder. You sabotaged the victim’s free will to consent to sex, murdered it through such scummy tactics and then intruded into her sexual purity, sanctity and intactness. These moral sexual values comprised a female’s wholeness, self-esteem, pride and existence as a human being. When you take these away from her in a cruel manner, you also take away the life of a woman, not only for her but her family, and husband. Sharita was in her final year at university and a married woman. I will cover below the evidence on the trauma she had to go through after you defiled her sexual purity as a married woman. I am saying these because your lawyer submitted that your case is not serious, in comparison to other similar cases both in the High Court and Court of Appeal. No two cases are similar and the exercise of discretion is not a fixed mathematical equation, to yield the same sentence term in every case coming before the court. So far as I am concerned, your case is serious due to the deceptive manner and threat you used to procure sex with the victim against her free will. It is demeaning and inhuman to procure sex the manner you did. Sex is a gift that is meant to be an enjoyment when procured in the proper manner.
   • (ii) Psychological harm and trauma – The victim explained clearly in the evidence the trauma and psychological harm, she had to endure. Sharita gave evidence that the incident created in her mind a daunting fear up until the day of the trial. She does not feel safe to go out. She stayed indoors for almost 2 years after her graduation. So, she did not find employment in those 2 years that she was confined at home due to fear. She felt that the only safest place for her was at home. Sharita also explained the shame she had to bear. She said that she felt very low and degraded in her life. She thought that her friends, relatives and families will see her and assumed that she accepted what happened to her, without knowing what she went through, how she felt and that she did not go out looking for what happened to her on 8/02/2022.
   • (iii) In terms of her marriage, it affected her married life in a terrible way. Her husband talked about the rape every day until the day of the trial and even fights with her. Sharita also said she has daily night mares. Every time she goes out, she would recall and see vehicle number (0145) in her mind. This will bring back memories of painful regret in recalling vehicle number 0145, the car in which her sexual human dignity was defiled. Sharita said these traumatic effects still haunt her life to the day of the trial.
   • (iv) In terms of trauma and psychological harm, Court should always take judicial notice of the long-term impacts and trauma on the victim despite lack of professional and medical evidence (Bonuga, 2014 Court of Appeal). 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 2023).
   • (v) Physical harm – Vaginal damage through forceful penial penetration is eminent. It must be appreciated that the very act of rape is physical violation of a victim and physical harm is inherent in it (R-v- Liufirara, Court of Appeal 2023).
   • (vi) Threat, use of weapon and confinement – In the main verdict I made the crucial finding that Sialo secured sexual intercourse with Sharita, through threat, when he drove the vehicle at high speed after Sharita refused his initial sexual approaches in the car at the front of the Kausimae building. He drove back towards the Panatina plaza U-turn and drove at an abnormally high speed, which created fear in Sharita’s mind. And to secure her safety she surrendered and submitted out of fear to have sex with Sialo in front of SINU, Kukum campus, Kukum high way on the walk way.
   • (vii) In my mind, Sialo used the vehicle as a weapon, threatening Sharita by driving at an abnormally high speed. Driving at abnormal high speed using a vehicle (the weapon) may result in death, if the car collides with another vehicle or crashes on the high way. And all these happened while Sharita was locked inside the car, held hostage against her will and thereby surrendered her free will out of fear for her safety and had sex with Sialo. This is a cruel and inhuman degrading treatment. Sialo used his car, as the weapon to sabotage and threaten Sharita.
   • (viii) Weak and vulnerable – A vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited by an attacker. A male is stronger than a female, in terms of their gender composition. In this case Sialo exerted his strength over the weak and vulnerable Sharita when he tricked, lured and threatened her. She was threatened and over powered resulting in her surrendering her body for sexual use by Sialo, the male attacker, who saw fit to exploit her vulnerable and weak gender to achieve his sexual desires. The weak cannot fight back. The strong will exploit that weakness to exert control and power to achieve his will over the weak gender, as it happened to Sharita in a dangerous fast-moving vehicle.
4. For all of the above 5 serious aggravating factors combined, I will increase the starting point sentence upwards by 10 more years (2 years for each aggravating factor). Increases due to serious aggravating factors must be made in years not merely in weeks and months (Bade, Court of Appeal, 2023). That will bring me to 18 years total head sentence before mitigation.
5. Then I determine the following mitigating factors: -
   • (i) First time offender with no previous convictions – Defence counsel submit that defendant has past convictions in his criminal record, but not for rape. This means Sialo will not have any reduction for this mitigating factor contrary to defence counsel persuasive submission.
   • (ii) Delay – There is no unreasonable delay in here. This is a 2023 matter. The offence was committed in the year 2022. Criminal matters go through lengthy processes and investigations. I cannot really say there was a long and unreasonable delay. Nevertheless, I will allow a 1-year reduction rather reluctantly.
   • (iii) Time spent in custody – I will consider this and allow for reductions. However, I will leave the reductions to be determined by the Rove Correctional Centre. Counsel did not assist to give me the exact length of time Sialo spent in pre-trial detention.
   • (iv) Rehabilitation – The purpose of imposing punishment is to rehabilitate and assist the offender to learn and come out to be a good person in society. Defendant is in his 30s and has the potential to come out a reformed and better person in society – I will give a big reduction of 3 years.
6. Defence put forward a strong argument that any sentence I impose should be between 6 to 9 years using comparative sentence decisions by the High Court and Court of Appeal. Defence even submit that personal circumstances of the defendant must be considered in mitigation though conceding that it should not be taken heed of in sexual offence cases. Due to his concession, I did not consider personal circumstances in mitigation.
7. If I use the comparative sentences, I am bound to make an error, because no two cases are exactly the same, despite similarities. What I must use is the sentencing guidelines. That is the approach I took in this decision and in all of my sentencing decisions. I follow sentencing guidelines and not comparison of precedent sentence cases.
8. The final head sentence I will impose is 14 years subject to further reduction by the Rove Correctional Centre for pre-trial detention time. 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.
9. This court has a duty to see that sentences it imposed gives 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.
10. As I stand back and look at the circumstances of the case and ask whether the merit justify the sentence term imposed, I can say that it is a fair sentence term when you consider that the maximum penalty available is life imprisonment and the gravity of the forceful rape and the manner to which you so inhumanly secured sex with the victim. This sentence reflects the gravity of the offence and accords well with Parliament’s legislative intend to protect women and girls from sexual abuse under the 2016 Act.
11. Mr. Sialo I will sentence you to 14 years imprisonment. You are entitled to pre-trial detention time reductions. Order accordingly.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE

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