Public Prosecutor v Wesur
SENTENCE
Introduction
1. The defendants are for sentencing. Following a trial of the matter, Manuel Wesur was found guilty and convicted on one count of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 90 and 91 of the Penal Code [CAP 135]. Helen Pesua was found guilty and convicted of one count of complicity to sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s30 and s90 and s91 of the Penal Code.
2. The maximum penalty for sexual intercourse without consent is life imprisonment. Complicity to sexual intercourse without consent carries the same penalty.
The facts
3. The facts are that are that the victim, PRD, is the daughter of Helen Pesua’s brother and was 16 years old at the time of the offending. The victim relates to the defendants as uncle and aunt. The facts proved at trial are that Manuel sent his wife Helen to go and get her niece PRD to follow them to his garden to weed his kava plants. PRD followed them to Manuel’s house and after having dinner together they went to sleep. They slept in one room under one mosquito net. PRD slept near the wall, Helen in the middle and Manuel near the door. During the night PRD heard Manuel and Helen talking then they exchanged beds. Manuel moved to Helen’s bed next to PRD.
4. He then started touching PRD’s stomach. PRD turned around and saw Manuel. He told PRD that her aunt Helen sent him to see her. Manuel removed PRD’s clothes. When she sat up and tried to move, Manuel held her hand pulled her down to the bed. Manuel held her breasts then slept on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. PRD cried and tried pushing him out but he was too heavy. Helen was awake and lying next to them but did nothing. After ejaculating Manuel wiped himself with his trousers. Then he told PRD and Helen not to tell anyone else about what happened and they went back to sleep. In the morning before going to the garden, Helen told PRD not to report the matter.
5. Upon their return from the garden in the afternoon, they had kava together then Manuel gave PRD VT2000. Helen and her daughter later escorted PRD back to her home. Helen did not tell PRD’s parents what her husband did to their daughter. PRD also did not report the matter as Manuel and Helen told her not to tell anyone.
6. The matter was later reported and Manuel and Helen were arrested.
Starting point of sentence
7. The starting point of sentence is assessed by taking into account any aggravating or mitigating factors of the offending with reference to the maximum penalty. The maximum sentence available is life imprisonment on both counts.
8. When considering what should be the starting point of sentence, the Prosecution in their submissions referred me to the decision of the Chief Justice in PP v August [2000] VUSC 73 which was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in PP v Scott [2002] VUCA 29 where he said:
“The offence of rape is always a most serious crime. Other than in wholly exceptional circumstance, rape calls for an immediate custodial sentence. This was certainly so in the present case. A custodial sentence is necessary for a variety of reasons. First of all to mark the gravity of the offence. Secondly to emphasize public disapproval. Thirdly to serve as a warning to others. Fourthly to punish the offender, and last but by no means least, to protect women. The length of the sentence will depend on the circumstances. That is a trite observation, but these in cases of rape vary widely from case to case.
For rape committed by an adult without an aggravating or mitigating feature, a figure of five years should be taken as the starting point in a contested case. Where a rape is committed by two or more men acting together, or by a man who has broken into or otherwise gained access to a place where the victim is living, or by a person who is in a position of responsibility towards the victim, or by a person who abducts the victim and holds her captive the starting point should be eight years.
At the top of the scale comes the defendant who has committed the offence of rape upon a number of different women or girls. He represents a more than ordinary danger and a sentence of fifteen years or more may be appropriate.
Where the defendant’s behaviour has manifested perverted or psychopathic tendencies or gross personality disorder, and where he is likely, if at large, to remain a danger to woman for an indefinite time, a life sentence will not be appropriate.
The offence of rape should in any event be treated as aggravated by any of the following factors:
(1) Violence is used over and above the force necessary to commit rape;
(2) A weapon is used to frighten or wound the victim;
(3) The rape is repeated;
(4) The rape has been carefully planned;
(5) The defendant has previous convictions for rape or other serious offences of a violent or sexual kind;
(6) The victim is subject to further sexual indignities or perversions;
(7) The victim is either very old or young;
(8) The effect upon the victim, whether physical or mental, is of special seriousness.
Where any one or more of these aggravating features are present, the sentence should be substantially higher than the figure suggested as the starting point.
….”
9. The prosecution submitted that both defendants were found guilty after a trial and they were persons who were in a position of responsibility towards the victim and their conduct violated that expectation. It was submitted that the offending must be condemned and a custodial sentence imposed. Comparable cases referred to show the starting points for similar offending ranging between 8 to 9 years imprisonment. The end sentences in these cases were all served: PP v Mariwota [2021] VUSC 283; PP v Lava [2026] VUSC 32; PP v Rite [2016] VUSC 82. The facts of these cases are distinguished from the current case.
10. It was submitted that given the circumstances of this case where there are a number of aggravating factors of the offending and the offending was committed with the assistance of another against a victim of 16 years, the starting point of sentence of the principal offender Manual Wesur must be between 10 to 15 years imprisonment.
11. In relation to Helen Pesua who was complicit in the offending, the Prosecution submitted that the Court should note s32 and 33 of the Penal Code [CAP 135]:
“32. Punishment of accomplices and co offenders
Subject to any express provision of law, an accomplice and co offender shall be punishable in like manner as a principal or sole offender.
33.Foreseable consequences
Any accomplice or co offender in the commission or attempted commission of an offence shall be equally responsible for any other offences committed or attempted as a foreseeable consequence of the complicity or agreement.”
12. Reference was made to PP v Tarilingi [2005] VUSC 140 for comparison where the principal offender and his accomplice were both sentenced to a term of three years imprisonment.
13. It was submitted that the starting point for both defendants in this case should be the same and the end sentence should be between 8 to 10 years imprisonment for both defendants.
14. The defendants submitted that a 10 year starting point for this case is sufficient and the end sentence after taking into account mitigating factors personal to the defendants should not be more than 8 years imprisonment back dated to when the defendants were remanded in custody.
15. The aggravating features of the offending are:
• that there was some planning involved,
• there was a breach of trust,
• there was an age disparity between the defendants and the victim,
• the victim was exposed to the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy and the incident will have lasting psychological effects on the victim.
• The victim was a vulnerable person.
16. The defendants agreed with the above aggravating factors.
17. There are no mitigating factors of the offending.
18. The starting point of sentence for both defendants is therefore 9 years imprisonment.
Personal factors
19. Both defendants maintained their not guilty pleas until completion of the trial therefore no discounts can be awarded for guilty pleas.
Manuel Wesur
20. A Pre-Sentence Report was filed on his behalf which sets out his personal details. He left school at class 3 and could not continue due to financial difficulties. He lives in a de factor relationship with the Helen Pesua as his wife and they have 5 children: 3 boys and 2 girls. He earns his living to support his family by planting and selling dry kava and other root crops as well as fish. For his personal factors I deduct 5 months from his sentence start point.
21. The report also discloses that a custom reconciliation was performed on his behalf by his family to the victim and her family by giving:
• A pig
• A local mat
• A big stem of kava
22. There was no confirmation that the victim and her family accepted the custom reconciliation. Therefore, I allow a deduction of 1 month from the sentence start point.
Helen Pesua
23. A Pre-Sentence Report was also filed on her behalf. The report discloses that she is a first-time offender and is the de facto partner of Manuel Wesur and they have 5 children. She left school at year 13 in 2012. After leaving school she was customarily engaged by Manuel Wesur to be his wife. She earns her income through gardening, raising pigs and chicken and selling local baskets and kava. She is skilled in weaving local baskets and mats and wants to continue with these activities to earn money to by a sewing machine.
24. Taking these factors into account, the sentence start point is reduced by 5 months.
25. The report also discloses that her families performed a custom reconciliation to the victim and her family on behalf of herself and Mr Wesur which is the exchange of VT 10,000, a mat and kava. There is no confirmation that this was accepted by the victim and her family. Therefore, I allow a deduction of 1 month from the sentence start point.
End sentence
26. Manuel Wesur is sentenced to an end sentence of 8 years and 5 months imprisonment for sexual intercourse without consent effective from 23 June 2025 when he was remanded into custody.
27. Helen Pesua is sentenced to an end sentence of 8 years and 5 months imprisonment for complicity to sexual intercourse without consent effective from 23 June 2025 when she was remanded into custody.
28. A custodial sentence is warranted in both cases to denounce the actions of the defendants and to ensure they are held accountable for their actions.
29. The defendants have 14 days to appeal if they are dissatisfied with the decision.
30. I also order that the name and details of the victim, PRD, be permanently suppressed.
DATED at Luganville this 15th day of September, 2026.
BY THE COURT
………………………
Dudley Aru
Judge