Public Prosecutor v Hilly

SENTENCE

Introduction

1.    The defendant appears before this Court today to be sentenced in relation to several offences. They include three distinct counts of intentional assault contrary to sections 107 (a), (b) and (c) respectively of the Penal Code, domestic violence contrary to section 4 (1) (a) of the Family Protection Act, and a breach of a Family Protection Order contrary to section 21 of the same Act, and conspiracy to defeat justice contrary to section 79 of that Act also.

2.    On the 7th October 2025, the defendant pleaded guilty to these charges, accepted the facts relating to them and was duly convicted on his pleas. 

 Factual circumstances 

3.    There were three victims in his case: Cilia Tahun Humas the defendant’s step mother Hansen Bule and Eldrina Rau, his step sister. The latter is nine years old. 

4.    On the 9th August 2024, the defendant struck Cilia Humas with a knife, injuring her left shoulder and her head. The evidence suggests that the knife inflicted open wounds, but does not provide further details about the injuries.

5.    On the morning of the 1st April 2026, the defendant followed Eldrina Rau to the guest house, and there slapped her across the head and grabbed a phone from her hand. When she ran away from him, the defendant pursued her and slapped her again on the head. She fell to the ground. He kicked her on the chest and back. He took her to the nakamal, but she escaped when she regained conscious. 

6.    On the 6th May 2025, the defendant approached Hansen Bule at her house in breach of a Family Protection Order, and hurled a stone in her direction but did not hit her.

7.    When the defendant was arrested and escorted by the police on the 11th July 2025, he called Hansen Bule on the telephone to tell her to write to the Police to seek his release.

Statutory Maximum Sentences

8.    Listed below are the statutory maximum sentences that may be imposed on the defendant for the offences which he has been convicted of:

a)    Intentional assault section 107 (c) :10 years

b)    Intentional assault section 107 (b): 5 years

c)    Intentional assault section 107 (a): 1 year

d)    Domestic violence section 4 (1) (a) Family Protection Act (FPA): 5 years / VT 100,000.

e)    Breach of Family Protection Order section 21 (1) FPA: 2 years / VT50,000.

f)    Conspiracy to defeat justice section79 (1): 7 years

Sentencing purpose and Guideline

9.    There are several principles that guide the Court when sentencing offenders. They include the proposition that a defendant must be held accountable and must take responsibility for his action. Additionally, his action is the kind that is denounced by society, and that similar future acts by him and others must be deterred.

10.    Equally important is that the defendant must be given ample opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate.

11.    The approach taken in the present case follows the guidance that was given by the Court of Appeal in the case Philip v Public Prosecutor [2020] VUCA 40.

Aggravating Factors

12.    The following circumstances constitute the aggravating factors in the present case: 

a)    The assaults and the act of domestic violence were completely unprovoked;

b)    A lethal weapon was used in one of the assaults, and targeted areas close to the head and neck, some of the vulnerable regions of the human anatomy;

c)    The victims included a child and an elderly woman;

d)    The defendant’s conduct comprised an element of breach of trust as it targeted family members who expected a level of care and protection from him.

Starting Point

13.    In assessing the appropriate starting point, I have taken into account the statutory maximum sentence, as well as the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offending.

14.    I have considered the submissions of counsel, as well as the authorities they have referred to for the Court’s consideration. 

15.    The defendant’s counsel referred me to a number of cases. The case Public Prosecutor v John [2024] VUSC involved several incidences of assault within the domestic context. The Court in that case adopted as starting point 8 months imprisonment for intentional assault causing no physical injury; one year for intentional assault causing temporary injury, and four years for intentional assault causing permanent injury. In Tari v Public Prosecutor [2011] 26, the Court of Appeal recommended a starting point of 3 years imprisonment for intentional assault resulting in permanent injury.

16.    In the case Public Prosecutor v Furet [2018] VUSC 22, the Court adopted a starting point of 2 ½ years in respect of an offence of domestic violence. For an offence of breaching a Family Protection Order, this Court in the case Public Prosecutor v John [2025] VUSC 109 adopted a starting point of 12 months. These cases have assisted the Court determine the appropriate starting points. The defendant’s counsel recommends a consolidated starting point of between 3 to 4 years imprisonment.

17.    The prosecuting counsel referred this Count to its decision in Public Prosecutor v Dean [2024] VUSC which adopted a starting points of 10 months imprisonment for the offence of assault causing no permanent injury, and 3 years for the offence of assault causing temporary injury.

18.    The prosecution suggested an entirely different approach, recommending instead specific starting points for each offence that the defendant has been convicted of, ranging from 10 moths to 5 years.

19.    I have considered all the foregoing matters and the submissions of counsel and adopt the following starting points:

a)    Intentional assault causing permanent injury: 48 months;

b)    Intentional assault causing temporary injury: 30 months;

c)    Intentional assault causing no injury: 10 months;

d)    Domestic violence – 30 months;

e)    Breach of Family Protection Order: 24 months

f)    Conspiracy to defeat justice – 20 months.

These starting points are to be applied concurrently, culminating in a consolidated starting point of 48 months.

Guilty Plea

20.    The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charges preferred against him when he was arraigned for the first time in this Court. As a result, this Court gives him a discount of 25% of his sentence from the starting point.

Mitigating and Personal Factors

21.    The defendant is about 38 years old and had four siblings. His formal education ended in class six at primary school. He earns a livelihood by doing farm work and breeding pigs.

22.    The defendant’s pre-sentence report records that he has a good relationship with his community, and has participated in community work and church activities. His pastor Patrick Silas confirms this but adds that the defendant needs to undertake spiritual counselling and anger management mentorship.

23.    The defendant performed a custom ceremony with one of the victims, Mrs Cilia Humas. She states that she had forgiven him.

24.    The pre-sentence report discloses that this is not the first time he has offended the law, and that he has a record of past incarcerations at the correctional centre.

25.    For these personal and mitigating factors, I reduce his sentence by a further 6 months.

End Sentence

26.    Mr. Graham Hilly, I have considered all these matters and impose on you an end sentence of 30 months. In deciding how this term of imprisonment will be served, I remind myself of the requirement of section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and in particular your character, the nature and the circumstances of your offences. I decline to suspend your sentence. It shall be served immediately.

27.    You have 14 days to appeal this sentence. 

DATED at Port Vila this 24th April of April 2026
BY THE COURT 

…………………………………………. 
Hon. Josaia Naigulevu 
Justice