The Court of Appeal has set aside a 15-year sentence for sexual intercourse without consent against a father who was initially charged for digitally penetrating his three daughters.

The Appellant in this case was initially sentenced by the Supreme Court on three counts of sexual intercourse without consent.

The offences occurred over a 12-month period and the victims were the appellant’s three daughters aged 5, 14, and 17 yeas.

Before trial, the defendant pleaded not guilty.

As trial began his two elder daughters gave evidence that the appellant had digitally penetrated them once on different occasions.

The appellant was then re-arraigned at his counsel’s request and he pleaded guilty just before his youngest daughter gave evidence.

He was then sentenced to 15 years imprisonment by the Supreme Court.

The man then appealed the sentenced on three grounds.

These three grounds cite no discounts for the guilty pleas, 15 years imprisonment being excessive and no separate sentence for each of the three charges.

The Appeal Court stated that a pre-sentence reports shows that the appellant had performed a customary reconciliation ceremony to his family members and village chief.

This was taken into consideration by the trial judge who gave a discount of six months in the context of a 15-year sentence.

The trial judge then arrived at 14-and-half, 11-and-half and 9-and-half years for the three offences of sexual intercourse without consent.

The judge then considered the aggregate of the sentences and imposed a final sentence of 15 years imprisonment.

The trial judge had taken into consideration that the guilty plea was made only after two of the victims gave evidence and did not give the appellant any credit for it.

But based on precedence, the Appeal Court was satisfied that a guilty plea discount was required.

The Appeal Court also noted that both counsels accepted that sexual intercourse by ‘digital penetration’ was different from and less serious than ‘penile penetration’ and that such a distinction should be recognized for sentencing purposes.

This is despite the trial judge’s view that digital rape should not be treated less.

The Appeal Court stated that it has been clear law in the Republic that penile intercourse as opposed to other forms of penetration of a female’s private part is ‘more serious’ and ‘more physically intrusive’.

It cited a recent case of repeated digital penetration where seven years imprisonment was the starting point.

In another Court of Appeal decision relating to a single incident of digital penetration of a 10-year-old victim, the court fixed a started point of six to seven years imprisonment.

Having taken these into account, the Appeal Court re-sentenced the man to eight years imprisonment after allowing the appeal.

SOURCE: VANUATU DAILY POST