The father, who was a pastor, was convicted following a trial held on May 27 and 28, 2026. The verdict was delivered on June 17, 2026.

The Court heard that the defendant was the father of the victim, whose name and identifying details have been permanently suppressed by order of the Court.

According to the judgment, the family was living in Tanna in 2025.

The Court heard that in April 2025, while the child’s mother was away from the home with the other children, the father sexually assaulted his daughter.

The following day, the child told her mother that she was experiencing pain. Her mother then sought medical attention for her daughter.

Following a medical examination, the Child Desk Office in Tanna became involved and a complaint was made to police.

The prosecution subsequently charged the father with unlawful sexual intercourse under section 97(1) of the Penal Code [CAP 135], an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

There had initially been a second charge of unlawful sexual intercourse, but the prosecutor entered a nolle prosequiin relation to that charge at the conclusion of the prosecution case.

In determining the sentence, Justice Mackenzie identified a number of aggravating factors.

The Court said the offending represented a gross breach of trust, noting that the defendant was the child’s father and should have protected her.

The Court also noted that the offending occurred in the family home, where the child was entitled to feel safe.

The child’s age was another aggravating factor. She was only five years old at the time of the offending, while the defendant was 42.

The Court also found that there was an element of planning because the defendant took the opportunity to offend when the child’s mother was away with the other children.

Justice Mackenzie further considered the physical injury suffered by the child and the potential for long-term emotional and psychological harm.

The judgment noted that while there was no specific evidence before the Court detailing the long-term psychological impact on the child, such harm from sexual abuse can be serious and may not become apparent until many years later.

Both the prosecution and defence submitted that a starting point of six years’ imprisonment was appropriate.

The Court considered previous Vanuatu cases involving unlawful sexual intercourse where the offending involved penetration.

Justice Mackenzie referred to decisions including Public Prosecutor v Andy [2011] VUCA 14 and Public Prosecutor v Freddy [2019] VUSC 19.

In Andy, the victim was 10 years old and the offending involved a breach of trust and injury. The Court of Appeal considered a starting point of between six and seven years’ imprisonment appropriate.

In Freddy, the victim was under five years old and the offending caused injury. The starting point in that case was six years’ imprisonment.

Justice Mackenzie found the offending in the present case to be at least as serious as those cases, particularly because of the child’s age, the breach of parental trust and the injury suffered.

The Court therefore adopted a starting point of six years’ imprisonment.

The Court then considered the defendant’s personal circumstances.

He did not plead guilty and was convicted after trial, meaning he was not entitled to any reduction for an early guilty plea.

He was 44 years old at the time of sentencing and had no previous convictions. The Court recognised his good character as a first offender and noted that he was regarded positively in his community.

However, the Court also heard information in the presentence report concerning allegations of violent and aggressive behaviour at home. His wife had provided that information, which was also supported by another pastor.

The defendant continued to deny committing the offence.

Justice Mackenzie said that because he continued to deny the offending, there could be no reduction for remorse or for his stated willingness to undertake a custom reconciliation involving his wife and daughter.

The Court reduced the six-year starting point by six months to recognise his good character as a first offender.

The defendant had been held in custody since April 30, 2025.

By the time of sentencing, he had spent approximately 16 months in custody, which the Court said equated to two years and eight months of imprisonment for sentencing purposes.

That period was taken into account when the Court imposed the final sentence.

The final sentence was therefore set at five years and six months’ imprisonment, backdated to begin from April 30, 2025.

The Court also considered whether the sentence could be suspended under section 57 of the Penal Code.

Justice Mackenzie said there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify suspending the sentence, either wholly or in part.

The Court referred to previous Court of Appeal decisions which established that suspension of imprisonment in cases involving serious sexual abuse would only be appropriate in an extreme or exceptional case.

Although the defendant was a first offender and was regarded positively in his community, the Court found that those factors could not outweigh the seriousness of the offending.

Justice Mackenzie said the sentence needed to reflect accountability, deterrence and denunciation, particularly because the defendant had taken sexual advantage of his young daughter, who was highly vulnerable because of her age and the relationship of trust between them.

The Court therefore ordered that he serve the sentence immediately.

The defendant has 14 days to appeal against the sentence.

The judgment was dated August 25, 2026, at Port Vila.

The victim’s name and identifying details remain permanently suppressed by order of the Supreme Court.

SOURCE: VANUATU DAILY POST