The State v Eddie Peter (No 2) (2001) N2297

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kandakasi J
• Judgment Date: 12 October 2001
• Citation: (2001) N2297
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2001
• Judgement Number: N2297

Full Title: The State v Eddie Peter (No 2) (2001) N2297

National Court: Kandakasi J

Judgment Delivered: 12 October 2001

1 CRIMINAL LAW—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—Past sentences not deterring sexual offences—Sexual offences on the increase—Need for stiffer penalties—Sentencing discretion under s19 of the Criminal Code—No expressed statutory prohibition against "quantum leaps" or "disparity of sentences between co–accused—Calls for review of sentences repeatedly made with a view to increasing sentence but no substantial increase made—A sentencing judge should be at liberty to impose sentences he or she considers appropriate in the particular circumstances of a case even if it is a quantum leap—Criminal Code s19

2 CRIMINAL LAW—Sentence—Rape on one on one with threat and use of force—Victim young primary school girl on way to school—Offender married to victim's aunt—Victim regards offender as a uncle—Relationship closure than a de facto one—17 years sentence imposed Criminal Code s347

3 James Mora Meaoa v The State [1996] PNGLR 280, John Aubuku v The State [1987] PNGLR 267, Thomas Waim v The State (1997) SC519, Lawrence Hindemba v The State (1998) SC593 referred to

___________________________

N2297

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR NO. 1446 of 1998

THE STATE

-V-

EDDIE PETER (No. 2)

ALOTAU: KANDAKASI, J.

2001: 9th, 10th and 12th October

CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Past sentences not deterring sexual offences – Sexual offences on the increase – Need for stiffer penalties – Sentencing discretion under s. 19 of the Criminal Code – No expressed statutory prohibition against “quantum leaps” or “disparity of sentences between co-accused – Calls for review of sentences repeatedly made with a view to increasing sentence but no substantial increase made – A sentencing judge should be at liberty to impose sentences he or she considers appropriate in the particular circumstances of a case even if it is a quantum leap – Criminal Code s. 19

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Rape on one on one with threat and use of force – Victim young primary school girl on way to school – Offender married to victim’s aunt – Victim regards offender as a uncle – Relationship closure than a defacto one – 17 years sentence imposed Criminal Code s. 347

Cases cited:

James Mora Meaoa v. The State [1996] PNGLR 280.

John Aubuku v. The State [1987] PNGLR 267.

Thomas Waim v. The State (unreported Supreme Court Judgement 02/05/97) SC519.

Lawrence Hindemba v. The State (unreported judgement 27/10/98) SC593.

Counsel

K. Popeu for the State

D. Kari for the Accused

DECISION ON SENTENCE

12th October 2001.

KANDAKASI, J: On Wednesday I found you guilty on one count of rape contrary to section 347 of Criminal Code after a trial. The Court then heard you and your lawyer as well as the lawyer for the State on the kind of sentence the Court should give you. In your own words, in your allocutus you asked for “power of mercy.” But you did not express any regret or sympathy to the victim and show a preparedness to change and become a better law abiding citizen.

You told the Court and I note you have two children both under the age of six. You are a first time offender and have no prior conviction. At the time of the offence, you were about 34 years old and married with two children. Both your parents have long deceased and you have been living with your adopted parents at Naura not far from here and where the offence was committed. You have up to grade 6 six formal education and have managed to find employment as a carpenter first and later as a harvester with Milne Bay Estates. Following your arrest, you have been in custody for 3 years one month and 15 days to today.

At the same time I note that, the victim of your crime was only a primary or community school child at the time of the offence. She was on her way to her school on that fateful morning when you raped her. No doubt she missed school that day. She suffered injuries to both of her knees in the process of unsuccessfully trying to run away from you. You used a grass knife to threaten her and force her to fall prey to your evil sexual desires. After raping her, you denied committing the offence despite the evidence against you as confirmed by your own blue jeans taken off from you by police on the same day of the offence and found to have sperm and blood stains on them consist with the victim’s and prosecution evidence. Your denial meant that the victim had to come to court and re-live the bad memories of the rape on her when you had nothing substantial in reply.

You are a married man. If you really had a sexual drive that day, you should have asked your wife for it and if she was willing, you could have satisfied yourself. You have not given any explanation to this Court as to why you could not do that. Instead of making use of that avenue, you picked on an innocent school child who was on her way to school. You had sometime earlier tried to force her to have sexual intercourse with you without success. You are an uncle to her by virtue of your marriage to her aunt, your wife. She therefore had no expectation whatsoever that you could do such a thing to her but you did. You betrayed the trust she had in you as an uncle or someone she knows and calls an uncle. You invaded her person and privacy. You left her with scares she will never easily overcome as she lives on. It is not clear whether she will be able to have a boy friend, get married and have a normal live.

What you did to the victim is an offence not only against her, her family and relatives but also against all young girls, women, and the community in the Milne Bay Province and the whole country of Papua New Guinea. There is already danger out there in the streets and highways of our beautiful country because of people like you. When all else is not safe any more, there is at least one place, the unit formed by family, relatives and friends because of the relationships that exists there. However, when such bad conduct creeps into these places which are sacred and dear to a person when all around is unsafe, it is a very serious thing that must be visited with stiffer penalties to deter other like mind persons of your type. Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledge that position and confirmed a sentence of 14 years in James Mora Meaoa v. The State [1996] PNGLR 280. The Court there held that a breach of a position of trust is an aggravating factor in sexual offences and warrants heavier sentence. It also held that positions of trust are not limited and may extend to defacto situations such as a vehicle or boat operator and his passengers. In your case, your relationship with the victim was close. She was a part of your family as much as you were. You did not by your conduct, respect and or honour that. Instead, you exploited it for your own personal satisfaction that could last only a few minutes and in the process you destroyed an innocent schoolgirl’s whole future to live freely as a human being.

Parliament on behalf of the people prohibited such conduct by enacting s. 347 of the Criminal Code and prescribed a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. A number of Supreme Court decisions have elaborated on the relevant sentencing guidelines in this kind of cases. The much-celebrated case of John Aubuku v. The State [1987] PNGLR 267 is an example. These cases make it clear that the offence of rape is a serious crime and it requires an...