[Published on Saturday, 18 April 2026]
BY MELVILLE TITIULU
The Court of Appeal on Monday, April 13, resentenced a 25-year-old man found guilty of raping his 16-year-old cousin to nine (9) years imprisonment.
The uplift of the sentence comes after the Office of the Director of the Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed against the sentence of 6 years as imposed on the respondent by the High Court. The DPP contends that the initial sentence imposed was inadequate.
According to the agreed facts, it stated that in the early hours of December, 27, 2024, between 3:00 am and 5:00 am, the complainant was asleep in her bedroom at her family room. The respondent sought to gain entry while she was sleeping. This woke her up. The complainant initially thought it was her mother and unlocked the door. She then returned to her bed and when she realised it was not her mother, she tried to get up. The respondent grabbed her and raped her. The complainant’s father intervened and kicked the respondent who fled naked from the house.
The respondent was later charged with one count of Rape contrary to section 136 F (1) (a) of the Penal Code (Cap 26), as amended by the Penal Code (Amendment) (sexual offences) Act 2016. He was initially found guilty and sentenced to six (6) years’ imprisonment at the High Court.
However, the appeal Justices noted that: ‘’we accept the appellant’s submission that the sentencing judge erred by failing to quantify the uplift for aggravating factors before applying deductions for mitigation’’. Thus, the initial sentence does not reflect the gravity of the offence of rape for it does not adhere to sentencing guidelines.
The three appeal justices noted in their judgment that the offence was aggravated by several significant factors. Firstly, breach of trust where the respondent as the victim’s cousin had a customary duty to protect her.
Secondly, the premeditation involved where the respondent planned the offence, waiting until the victim was asleep before entering the room.
Thirdly, location and timing, in the context where the offence occurred at night in the victim’s home, a place where she was entitled to feel safe.
Fourthly, the psychological harm involved whereby the offence caused significant trauma and humiliation to a vulnerable 16-year-old victim.
Lastly, the age disparity in the sense that the 25-year-old respondent exploited the 16-year-old victim, exacerbating the power imbalance.
The Appeal Justices further deducted 3 years to reflect the respondent’s early guilty plea, his status as a first-time offender, and the customary reconciliation undertaken between the families. Consequently, the appeal by the DPP was allowed with the sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment quashed and substituted with a sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment.
The order of the court also noted that the respondent’s time spent in pretrial custody shall be deducted.
The Court of Appeal Justices include Sir John Baptist Muria, Justice Les Gavara-Nanu and Chief Justice Sir Albert Palmer.
For feedback, contact: [email protected]
Editor: [email protected]
