The State v James Yali (2006) N2989
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Docket Number | CR No 368 of 2005 |
Citation | (2006) N2989 |
Year | 2006 |
Court | National Court |
Judgement Number | N2989 |
Full Title: CR No 368 of 2005; The State v James Yali (2006) N2989
National Court: 19 January 2006
Judgment Delivered: Cannings J
N2989
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
CR NO 368 0F 2005
THE STATE
V
JAMES YALI
MADANG : 17, 19 JANUARY 2006
CANNINGS J
SENTENCE
Criminal law – sentencing principles for rape – Criminal Code, Division V.7, sexual offences and abduction – Section 347, rape – sentence after trial – distinction between rape simpliciter, Section 347(1), and rape in circumstances of aggravation, Section 347(2) – sentencing of an offender under Section 347(1) – maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment – starting point – identification of relevant considerations – sentence of 12 years.
The offender was convicted of the rape of his de facto wife’s sister. He was aged 41 and a member of the National Parliament at the time of the offence. The victim was aged 17 years. The offender acted alone. No weapons were used. There was no aggravated physical violence. The victim was not physically injured. There was a violation of trust. The offender did not surrender but cooperated with the police to a certain extent. He has caused trouble since the incident. There was an exchange of a substantial amount of money following the incident but this fell short of being regarded as compensation. There was a high degree of sexual indignity. He has not expressed remorse. He has one previous conviction, for assault. He is not a youthful offender. The offence was committed while he was a member of the Parliament and Governor of his province.
Held:
(1) This was a serious case of rape under Section 347(1) of the Criminal Code.
(2) As no circumstances of aggravation were charged in the indictment the maximum penalty to which the offender could be sentenced was 15 years imprisonment.
(3) The court should use 10 years imprisonment as a starting point when sentencing under Section 347(1), then consider all mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
(4) In the present case there were more strongly aggravating circumstances than strongly mitigating circumstances and it was proper to sentence the offender above the starting point.
(5) The offender was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
Cases cited
The following cases are cited in the judgment:
Daniel Kemi Mebil v The State (2004) SC749
Didei v The State [1990] PNGLR 458
James Mora Meaoa v The State [1996] PNGLR 280
John Aubuku v The State [1987] PNGLR 267
John Jaminan v The State (No 2) [1983] PNGLR 318
Lawrence Hindemba v The State (1998) SC593
Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789
The State v Alphonse Apou Dioro (2003) N2431
The State v Biason Benson Samson (2005) N2799
The State v Damien Mangawi (2003) N2419
The State v Dibol Petrus Kopal (2004) N2778
The State v Donald Angavia & Others (2004) N2590
The State v Donald Poni (2004) N2663
The State v Eddie Trosty (2004) N2681
The State v Eki Kondi and 4 Others (No 2) (2004) N2543
The State v Ezra Hiviki (No 2) (2004) N2548
The State v Flotyme Sina (No 2) (2004) N2541
The State v Gary Sasoropa and 2 Others (No 2) (2004) N2569
The State v George Taunde (2005) N2807
The State v Henry Nandiro (No 2) (2004) N2668
The State v James Yali (2005) N2931
The State v James Yali (2005) N2988
The State v John Ritsi Kutetoa (2005) N2814
The State v Julius Ombi (No 2) (2004) N2552
The State v Junior Apen Sibu (No 2) (2004) N2567
The State v Kemai Lumou (2004) N2684
The State v Komai Balal (No 2) (2005) N2821
The State v Kunija Osake (2003) N2380
The State v Luke Sitban (No 2) (2004) N2566
The State v Michael Waluka Lala, CR No 215 of 2004, 08.06.05, unreported
The State v Miseal Butemo Jiregari [1984] PNGLR 62
The State v Nick Teptep (2004) N2612
The State v Noutim Mausen (No 2), CR No 596 of 2004, 24.08.05, unreported
The State v Pais Steven Sow (No 2) (2004) N2588
The State v Pascal Maya Omi (2005) N2808
The State v Penias [1994] PNGLR 48
The State v Pennias Mokei (No 2) (2004) N2635
The State v Peter Huli Hahe Haite (2003) N2383
The State v Peter Kaudik [1987] PNGLR 201
The State v Peter Lare (2004) N2557
The State v Seyo Aroko (2005) N2822
The State v Thomas Madi (2004) N2625
The State v Titus Soumi (2005) N2809
The State v Togey Bou (1996) N1530
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations appear in the judgment:
AIDS – Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
BSc – Bachelor of Science
© – copyright
CID – Criminal Investigations Division
CJ – Chief Justice
CM – Chief Magistrate
DCJ – Deputy Chief Justice
DPI – Department of Primary Industry
HIV – Human Immunodeficiency Virus
J – Justice
OIC – officer-in-charge
PMV – public motor vehicle
PNG – Papua New Guinea
PNGLR – Papua New Guinea Law Reports
PSC – Police Station Commander
SENTENCE
This was a judgment on sentence for rape.
Counsel
N Miviri for the State
G J Sheppard and N Eliakim for the offender
CANNINGS J:
INTRODUCTION
This is a decision on sentence for a man convicted of the rape of his de facto wife’s 17-year-old sister.
BACKGROUND
On 13 December 2005 the offender, James Yali, was convicted of the rape of a young female, contrary to Section 347(1) of the Criminal Code. The offence was committed at Madang town on the night of 14 October 2004. The offender collected the victim at the house he owned, and that she lived in, in his vehicle, a single-cab utility. She went with him reluctantly. She thought that they were going to Madang Resort for a dinner being held as part of the National Governors’ conference. However, he drove through various parts of Madang town, stopping at Smugglers Inn and at his office at the Madang Provincial Government Offices before driving out along the North Coast Road. He stopped at Mis, turned around and came back to his office, parking the vehicle just outside his office door. He forced her into his office then penetrated her vagina without her consent. That was the act that constituted the offence of rape. He then brought her back to the house at the back of Madang Butchery from where he had picked her up. He was aged 41 at the time of the offence. The victim was 17 years old, attending school in Madang. She was the sister of his de facto wife. Further details of the circumstances in which the offence was committed are set out in the judgment on verdict (The State v James Yali (2005) N2988, National Court, Cannings J).
RELEVANT LAW
The offender was charged with and convicted of rape under Section 347(1) of the Criminal Code.
Section 347 (definition of rape) of the Criminal Code states:
(1) A person who sexually penetrates a person without his consent is guilty of a crime of rape.
Penalty: Subject to Subsection (2), imprisonment for 15 years.
(2) Where an offence under Subsection (1) is committed in circumstances of aggravation, the accused is liable, subject to Section 19, to imprisonment for life.
“Circumstances of aggravation” are defined by Section 349A (interpretation) of the Criminal Code, which states:
For the purposes of this Division [Division V.7 (sexual offences and abduction)], circumstances of aggravation include, but [are] not limited to, circumstances where—
(a) the accused person is in the company of another person or persons; or
(b) at the time of, or immediately before or after the commission of the offence, the accused person uses or threatens to use a weapon; or
(c) at the time of, or immediately before or after the commission of the offence, the accused person tortures or causes grievous bodily harm to the complainant; or
(d) the accused person confines or restrains the complainant before or after the commission of the offence; or
(e) the accused person, in committing the offence, abuses a position of trust, authority or dependency; or
(f) the accused is a member of the same family or clan as the complainant; or
(g) the complainant has a serious physical or mental disability; or
(h) the complainant was pregnant at the time of the offence; or
(i) the accused was knowingly infected by Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or knowingly had Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
The present Sections 347 and 349A were introduced by the Criminal Code (Sexual Offences and Crimes Against Children) Act No 27 of 2002, Sections 17 and 20. The new law commenced operation in April 2003. (See The State v James Yali (2005) N2931, National Court, Cannings J (ruling on evidence.) Prior to the amendment the maximum penalty for all kinds of rape was life imprisonment.
In the present case the rape charge was contained in count 2 of an indictment that contained four charges. The offender was acquitted of counts 1 (abduction) and 3 (abuse of trust). He was found guilty of count 4 (sexual assault) but no conviction was recorded as that charge was expressed as an alternative to count 2. Count 2 alleged that the offender sexually penetrated the complainant without her consent. No circumstances of aggravation were alleged.
A threshold issue in this case is: what is the maximum penalty? Is it 15 years imprisonment? Or imprisonment for life? The court has received competing submissions on this issue, which will be outlined below.
Whatever the maximum penalty is, the court has a considerable discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CR NO 513 OF 2010; State v Bibi Frank (No. 2) (Prisoner) (2012) N4700
...v The State SCRA No. 95 of 1996; The State v Nick Teptep (2004) N2612; The State v Kenneth Penias [1994] PNGLR 48; The State v James Yali (2006) N2989; The State v Donald Angavia (No 2) (2004) N2590; Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789; The State v Eki Kondi (No 2) (2004) N2543; The State v ......
-
The State v Baimon Johnny (2008) N3861
...(No 2) (2004) N2566; The State v Henry Nandiro (No 2) (2004) N2668; The State v Dibol Petrus Kopal (2004) N2778; The State v James Yali (2006) N2989; Rudy Yekat v The State [2000] PNGLR 225; Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564; Edmund Gima and Siune Arnold v The State (2003) SC730; Th......
-
The State v Alex Matasol Hagali (2006) N4491
...in the indictment. Therefore the maximum sentence that can be imposed for each offence is 15 years imprisonment (The State v James Yali (2006) N2989, National Court, Cannings J). STEP 2: WHAT IS A PROPER STARTING POINT? 11. In Yali’s case I decided that the starting point for sentencing for......
-
Jacob Sanga Kumbu v Dr Nicholas Mann, Chairman, Council Appeal Committee, University of Papua New Guinea and University of Papua New Guinea and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2012) N4746
...and Local-Level Government Affairs OS No 487 of 2000, 12.07.01; The State v Dibol Petrus Kopal (2004) N2778; The State v James Yali (2006) N2989; The State v Saul Ogerem (2004) N2780; Umapi Luna Pakomeyu v James Siai Wamo (2004) N2718; Wawoi Guavi Timber Company Ltd v Ken Norae Mondia (2007......
-
CR NO 513 OF 2010; State v Bibi Frank (No. 2) (Prisoner) (2012) N4700
...v The State SCRA No. 95 of 1996; The State v Nick Teptep (2004) N2612; The State v Kenneth Penias [1994] PNGLR 48; The State v James Yali (2006) N2989; The State v Donald Angavia (No 2) (2004) N2590; Manu Kovi v The State (2005) SC789; The State v Eki Kondi (No 2) (2004) N2543; The State v ......
-
The State v Baimon Johnny (2008) N3861
...(No 2) (2004) N2566; The State v Henry Nandiro (No 2) (2004) N2668; The State v Dibol Petrus Kopal (2004) N2778; The State v James Yali (2006) N2989; Rudy Yekat v The State [2000] PNGLR 225; Public Prosecutor v Don Hale (1998) SC564; Edmund Gima and Siune Arnold v The State (2003) SC730; Th......
-
The State v Alex Matasol Hagali (2006) N4491
...in the indictment. Therefore the maximum sentence that can be imposed for each offence is 15 years imprisonment (The State v James Yali (2006) N2989, National Court, Cannings J). STEP 2: WHAT IS A PROPER STARTING POINT? 11. In Yali’s case I decided that the starting point for sentencing for......
-
Jacob Sanga Kumbu v Dr Nicholas Mann, Chairman, Council Appeal Committee, University of Papua New Guinea and University of Papua New Guinea and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2012) N4746
...and Local-Level Government Affairs OS No 487 of 2000, 12.07.01; The State v Dibol Petrus Kopal (2004) N2778; The State v James Yali (2006) N2989; The State v Saul Ogerem (2004) N2780; Umapi Luna Pakomeyu v James Siai Wamo (2004) N2718; Wawoi Guavi Timber Company Ltd v Ken Norae Mondia (2007......