Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Public Prosecutor v Tatangis [2001] VUSC 47; Criminal Case No 013 of 2001 (10 May 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No.13 of 2001

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

–v-

TARIP TATANGIS

Mr. Terry Gardner for the Prosecution

Mr. Stephen Joel for the defendant

SENTENCE

The defendant Tarip Tatangis was charged under Section 98 (1) of the Penal Code that is for Indecent Assault, for that on the 21^st of April 2001 at Wong Garage, Tebakor, Port Vila, he indecently assaulted Vanessa Kalo and that was by pushing his finger inside Vanessa Kalo’s vagina and at that time Vanessa Kalo was only 11 years old. The charge was put to the defendant and he admitted and the Court enters a plea of guilty against him.

The summary facts of the case are as follows:-

That on the 21^st April 2001, about after lunch Vanessa Kalo was sleeping in her house. She then woke up and went to the toilet, when she opened the toilet door the prisoner was already inside. The prisoner than pulled her into the toilet and inside he told her to hold his penis and she refused. Then the prisoner put his finger into her pants and pushes one of his fingers into her vagina. He even asked her to kiss him but she refused. Shortly after he then ejaculated on her hand and after she went out and told her mother. By that time the prisoner came out of the toilet. The mother asked him but he denied what he did to Vanessa Kalo. On this happening Vanessa Kalo was taken for medical examination and on medical examination it was reported that part of her vagina was ruptured and even some sign of bruises around her vagina area. The defendant was arrested and taken to the police where interview was conducted and he admitted what he did to Vanessa Kalo in the toilet.

On hearing Terry Gardner for the Public Prosecutor the matter was quite serious and such cases attract custodial sentence. Further, the offence was quite serious and a deterrent penalty is required to be imposed by this Court as this Court in the past has imposed straight sentence for this type of offences. In addition there were no prior conviction against the defendant for this type of offence.

Joel Stephen for the defendant advances that the defendant is 47 years old, married with 7 children, one works at the Drug Store, the other one at Le Meridien, one unemployed, two in high schools, and the other children are in primary schools. The defendant by profession he is a carpenter and also knows mechanical work, and employed with Wong Garage at Tebakor. The defendant came to Vila for employment purposes and mainly for school fees for his children and also to look after his family.

The offence that the defendant is charged under carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail and that shows that the offence is a serious offence of which straight sentence must be imposed as the penalty required under the law. The defendant is a matured person, with 47 years of age, has a wife and has seven children, and knew exactly what he was doing. He took advantage of the child immature thinking towards what sex is all about. The defendant has touched her private part, not only that, but also ruptured part of her vagina which means that he did pushed his finger into her vagina. It is quite very very serious on medical grounds that if the finger has done more damage than what it did to her at that time it could caused her death, because of her age at that time.

The Court has a duty under the law on finding a person guilty, to impose a sentence that will reflect the will of the society and the law. In your case I will impose a custodial sentence. The reason being that as a form of deterrence, that is to tell the public that committing such offences like this are not welcomed by the Law, and the Court has to take a stand to protect the innocent persons of such age groups by imposing severe penalty, not only as a deterrence penalty, but also as a punishment to the offender so that others who may want to commit similar offence must think twice. In your case the sentence to be imposed on you is a sentence of thirty months as the penalty. In arriving at this period of sentence I’ve also taken into consideration that you have freely admitted the offence itself. By freely admitting the offence it saves the time of the small girl to come to Court and give evidence which is quite more very very detrimental to her future life and also embarrassing to her and her family as they would not like the public to hear and know what you did to their child.

Now the question your wife and your children will be asking: “Why did our daddy did this to this child? You will also have a bad image in your family and your relatives which in itself is shameful thing to do as you already have a wife and you have children. Not only that, but also what you have done to the child also affected her parents and even her brothers and sisters and their relatives. For these reasons I will now impose a sentence of twenty four months as the appropriate penalty for you to serve as a punishment. Therefore, you are now convicted and sentence to imprisonment for a period of twenty four months.

Dated at Port Vila, this 10^th day of May, 2001.

R. MARUM MBE

JUDGE.