A 20-year-old man was sentenced to 11-years imprisonment for carnal knowledge of a child and abduction of a girl, among other serious offences committed in June this year in Navutoka.

Lord Chief Justice O.G. Paulsen in sentencing the offender on December 7 at the Supreme Court in Nuku’alofa, said the offending was truly abhorrent.

The court heard, in the early morning, after drinking alcohol he broke into this house, where the child was sleeping beside her mother and abducted her to an abandoned house, where the serious indencies were committed.

When the parents woke up and realized she was gone they called the Police and a search was carried out resulting in his arrest.

The Prosecution submitted that this was offending of the most serious kind and there a many aggravating features that included, the offending was at the higher level of seriousness-raping and indecently assaulting a child of a very young age, abducting a child at night, among others.

“The Court has recognized many times that sexual offending against children is taken particularly seriously and that the Court will respond by imposing appropriate sentences, the object of which is the protection of children from being exposed to those who would prey upon them and to deter future offending, not only by a particular offender but more generally by others who might otherwise be inclined to offend in this way."

The lead offence for sentencing purposes is carnal knowledge of a child under the age of 12.

Child protection

The Chief Justice said the overall sentence is 14-years imprisonment, which in his view was both just and appropriate given the nature of this offending, its depravity and injurious emotional, physical and inevitably psychological effects on the victim and also the effects on her parents and the quality of their family life.

In terms of mitigation, the offender was entitled to credit that he had no previous convictions for this kind of offending and that he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

"I give him a three-year discount for these factors, I do not see any reason to further discount the sentence because of remorse as the offender has not demonstrated remorse by now minimizing what he did, nor for the apology to the family, which was not accepted. The result is that the final sentence is 11-year imprisonment."

He then suspended the final year of this sentence for three-years on conditions that the offender dosz not to live in any residence near the victim nor in any accommodation where girls or young women are present during his suspension, among other terms.

“I consider that this is the least restrictive sentence of imprisonment that I can possibly impose whilst still reflecting the serious nature of the offending and the Court's commitment to protect children and deter such offending.”

The imprisonment was backdated to October when this offender was remanded in custody for sentencing.