Judge: Age no shield for heinous crimes

The sentencing of an 81-year-old man to 14 years’ imprisonment for rape and indecent assault has highlighted the judiciary’s firm stance on holding elderly offenders accountable for serious crimes.

In delivering the sentence, Justice Lee James Burney made it clear that age should not be a shield against justice. He warned that reducing sentences based on age could set a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining the deterrent effect of the legal system and suggesting that older individuals might face less severe consequences for heinous acts.

Justice Burney stressed that the gravity of the offence must outweigh considerations of age and health, reinforcing that serious crimes will be met with serious consequences, regardless of the offender’s age.

Case background

The offender in Labasa was convicted of one count of rape and one count of indecent assault involving a 13-year-old female student. Between January and April 2024, the victim and her younger sister lived with their aunty and four cousins in a flat rented from the offender, who was also their landlord. The flat was located under the same roof as the offender’s residence.

On the evening of April 27, 2024, the aunty left to drink grog, instructing the children to stay indoors. That night, the offender knocked on their door and told them to sleep at his place. Reluctantly, they went—and it was there that he committed the offence.

The court also heard that prior to this incident, the offender had repeatedly asked the victim to bring items to his kitchen, during which he performed sexual acts on her. At the time of the offence, the offender was 79 years old, and the victim was a 13-year-old school student.

Health considerations and sentencing

The offender’s lawyer, Reema Raj of the Legal Aid Commission, told the court that her client suffers from multiple health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, renal impairment, asthma, and nicotine dependence. He also experiences lower urinary tract symptoms associated with an enlarged prostate.

Despite these health issues, Justice Burney ruled that the seriousness of the crime warranted a firm sentence. He sentenced the offender to 14 years’ imprisonment, less time already served on remand, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 10 months.