Mitige Neheye v The State; Martin Gawi v The State

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: [1994] PNGLR 71
• Date: 30 August 1992
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1994

Supreme Court: Woods J, Konilio J, Doherty J

Judgment Delivered: 30 August 1992

1 Criminal law—sentence—incest—sentencing principles—pregnancy—age of victim—consensual relationship

___________________________

Woods J: These are two Appeals from sentences imposed following pleas of guilty to the crime of incest. Because the sentencing principles applied were the same in each case the appeals against sentence have been argued together.

In Appeal 51 of 1989 the Appellant had pleaded guilty to 4 counts of incest with his daughter in August 1987. The Defendant was 39 years of age married with 2 wives and 8 children. The victim was the 4th child of the 2nd wife and was aged 15 years at the time of the offence. The victim became pregnant and from the evidence it appears the father took the victim to a doctor to confirm the pregnancy. The appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

The original Notice of Appeal was lodged by the Appellant himself from jail, a Supplementary Notice of Appeal was filed and the grounds set out and argued were:—

That the sentence is manifestly excessive:

1. In that the trial Judge erroneously applied the tariff in rape sentences to the crime of incest.

2. In that the trial Judge placed too much weight to the social effects adverse to the victim in sentencing the Appellant.

3. In that in all the circumstances it is out of reasonable proportion to the crime committed.

On the first ground of appeal the trial Judge clearly noted in his judgment that under the Papua New Guinea Criminal Code (Ch262) there are three sexual offences which attract life imprisonment namely incest, which is the offence in this case, the defilement of a girl under 12 (s213 and s347). He then noted that the sentences of life imprisonment laid down by the Legislature indicate the seriousness with which Parliament views these offences. After noting that the Supreme Court has not discussed the principles for sentencing in incest cases but it has recently addressed principles of sentencing in rape in the case John Aubuku v The State [1987] PNGLR 267, he said that in his view the same principles can be applied to the offence of incest because that offence is a sexual offence and because it is regarded as a very serious offence by Parliament.

Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that this is wrong but he has presented no real substantial reasons why this is wrong. I myself cannot find any error in His Honour's reasoning here. I refer to the phrases "Statutory Rape" which is sometimes used in other...