Justice Lesatele Rapi Vaai handed down a nine-year sentence against Sepulenato Lemalu, convicted of sexual violation by rape; sexual connection with a dependent family member; and being armed with a dangerous weapon.
The sentencing held last week, saw the Prosecution applying for an imprisonment sentence with the recommendation of a starting point of 18 years imprisonment; while the defence asked the court to the starting point of 10 years.
The victim is the stepdaughter of the defendant and she lived with her mother when the incident occurred.
“On the night of your offending, your wife went to watch television at your neighbour’s home leaving you, your four-year-old son and the victim at home. The victim was asleep in her room when you entered armed with a small knife. Despite her protests, you proceeded to pin her down […..he] eventually raped her.
“You threatened her with a knife. She was in pain when you forcibly [raped] her. She was also terrified.
Although the incident was conveyed to the mother the same night, it was only after several months later when the grandparents discovered the incident that the police were notified and the investigations commenced.”
The victim is now 18 years old and still remembers with anger the threats you made on the night in question.
“With the peace and security given to her by her grandparents, she has made every effort to erase the pain from your offending. She found it difficult to understand the offending and the emotions she feels.
Her state of emotions has unfortunately been complicated by the attitude of her mother who has turned hostile and blamed the victim for the consequences of the conviction which you now face.
The grandfather during his testimony at the trial also carried some guilt as a result of having allowed the victim to live with her biological mother and you.”
The pre-sentence report has provided the Court with important information that the defendant remained adamant of his innocence, insisting that he and the victim were not together at the time noted on the charging sheet that the offending took place.
According to the judgement, defence Counsel Sarona Ponifasio suggests that band two of 9 to 15 years’ imprisonment.
“Ms. Ponifasio also submitted that your offending falls within the lower end of band two and that the starting point should be around 10 years.
“She does not contest that the victim was vulnerable. However, she contended there was no element of pre-meditation on your part, that there was no violence involved beyond that which is intrinsic to the offending; that your offending was in substance a single incident of opportunistic instead of a pre-meditation.
“With commendable frankness, your counsel conceded that the aggravating features of your offending include the breach of trust; it was committed within the family environment against a dependent, vulnerable family member.
For the Prosecution it was submitted that your offending falls at the higher end of rape band three because there are several aggravating features present that are serious.
“In addition to the vulnerability breach of trust and familial relationship conceded to by your counsel, there was also the age disparity, moderate degree of violence and the threat with a dangerous weapon.
“The difference between the starting points submitted by counsels arises from their different views on the factors which they consider make your offending more serious.”
Justice Vaai says the most significant aggravating features of the offense is the vulnerability of the victim, who treated him as a father figure.
“She suffered emotional harm. In cases of sexual offending against young girls, harm is seen as being “ordinarily serious and having lasting impacts.
“I also accept that your offending was pre-meditated. It was not merely opportunistic. Although you did not manufacture the circumstances to be alone with the victim, you approached her with a knife as soon as your wife left the house.
“Although you did not physically harm the victim you did threaten her. “Violence is not restricted to physical violence. It also includes threats of violence on a young girl, like the victim, who was under 18 at the time of your offending.”
His Honours ruled to start sentencing point at 12.
“You are entitled to a discount for previous good character and for the manner in which your village treated you as a consequence of your offending. You were temporarily banished. You were also heavily fined. At the age of 52, you appear for the first time in Court. I fix the discount at 25%.
“On the issue of remorse, you have obviously displayed no feeling of remorse by insisting on your innocence through the pre-sentence report. As a consequence you will not be entitled to a reduction in sentence.” The defendant was sentenced to nine years in jail.
