A father and his daughter have been ordered to serve three years and eight months imprisonment on separate counts of incest based on section 95 (2) of the Penal Code Act CAP 135.
The father said in his pre-sentence report that he groomed to have sex with his daughter since 2006 and shifted a part of the blame to his wife claiming she was sick and was unable to accept his sexual desires.
The daughter said that she was having consensual sex with her father because they were living together and their close relationship made easier to give in for sexual intercourse.
She said in her pre-sentence report that she is very sorry and that made her now moved out and reside in a different place.
She said that she now realised that she should not have offended that way and described the offence as very serious for a daughter to enter a sexual relationship with her father.
Justice Daniel Fatiaki said that the offending was aggravated by its repetition over many years, unprotected that led to the daughter impregnated with two infants that both died.
Justice Fatiaki said that incest is an offence that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and is a very serious offence.
He said that incest has a biblical prohibition that set out in Leviticus 18:8 – 18 and 20: 11 – 21 and there are no sound medical reasons against it such as to prevent ‘in breeding’ and reduce the risk of congenital abnormalities, developmental and physical disability and death.
He said that it also has potential to seriously undermine and destroy familial relationships.
He said that the repetition of incest would have been a serious crime and many have regretted it but to repeat the offence shows a very different attitude and a lack of contrition or remorse.
“I accept that the present case is unusual in that both participants in the offence are charged with the same offence in the same information, but given the unusually frank admissions of the father and the daughter, the charges were entirely appropriate,” he said.
“They are equally culpable and knowingly and willingly participated in the offence.
“There has been no suggestion of any force, threats, coercion or dissent involved in the commission of the offence as related by eye-witness.”
He said that the offence was fully consensual and said that fathers and daughters were strictly forbidden by criminal law under all circumstances from having sexual intercourse.
And he said that consent in this case might be an aggravating factor.
He said that the facts showed that the duo entered in that long term relationship and the chief was suspecting them that there must be something going on between them but they denied it.
He said that later an eyewitness caught them in the act while he was checking on his pigs’ trap early in the morning on January 10, 2017 before the matter was reported to the police.
In his sentencing equation, Justice Fatiaki arrived at seven years as the starting point in which he reduced to 18 months for the custom reconciliation they each performed to the daughter’s mother and the fact that each of them are first time offenders.
He said that they both cooperated with the police and made full admission under caution.
He then reduced 22 months for their guilty pleas giving an end sentence of 44 which is equivalent to three years and eight months imprisonment.
He then ordered the sentence to be served with immediate effect.