Public Prosecutor v Haitas

SENTENCE 

Introduction 

1.    Edgar Haitas you pleaded you were charged with 4 counts of acts of indecency contrary to s98A of the Penal Code Act [CAP 135]. You pleaded guilty to two of the charges (Counts 2and 3) and pleaded not guilty to the other two (Counts 1and 4.) The prosecution then entered a nolle prosequi on these two latter charges intending not to maintain them against you. You accepted the summary of facts put to you and you now appear for sentence.

2.    The maximum penalty for the offence of acts of indecency is 10 years imprisonment.

The Facts 

3.    There are two victims to your offending, both are young girls. In order to protect their identities, I shall refer to them as LJ and LM. At the time of your offending, they were under 15 years of age. LJ was were 12 years old and LM was 8 years old. They were all attending Primary school on South Malekula when the offending occurred. 

Count 2 

4.    Around January 2024 to March 2025, you intentionally touched LJ’s breasts and vagina who at that time was under 15 years of age.

Count 3

5.    Similarly around the same time from January 2024 to March 2025 you intentionally touched LM’s  the breasts  and vagina who at that time was under 15 years of age.

6.    In your statement to the Police, you admitted your offending.

Starting point of sentence 

7.    When assessing the starting point of sentence, I must consider any aggravating or mitigating factors of your offending with reference to the maximum penalty. The maximum sentence available is 10 years imprisonment. I accept the submissions by the prosecution that there are a number of aggravating factors namely: 

•    There was an element of planning involved;
•    There was breach of trust as you are a teacher at the school where the offending occurred;
•    There is an age disparity between you and the three victims;
•    The offending was repeated;
•    The offending was against 2 different young victims;
•    The offending will have some psychological impact on the young victims. 

8.    There are no mitigating factors of the offending.

9.    In PP v Gideon [2002] VUCA 7 the Court of Appeal set out the guiding principle to be applied Courts in cases of this nature as follows:

“…. there is an overwhelming need for the Court on behalf of the community to condemn in the strongest terms any who abuse young people in our community. Children must be protected. Any suggestion that a 12-year-old has encouraged or initiated sexual intimacy is rejected. If a twelve-year-old is acting foolishly then they need protection from adults. It is totally wrong for adults to take advantage of their immaturity.”

10.    And went further to state that:

“It will only be in a most extreme of cases that suspension could ever be contemplated in a case of sexual abuse. …….. Men must learn that they cannot obtain sexual gratification at the expense of the weak and the vulnerable. What occurred is a tragedy for all involved. Men who take advantage sexually of young people forfeit the right to remain in the community.”

11.    The prosecution referred to PP v Moli [2024] VUSC107 and submitted that it is comparable to the current case. The defendant was a counselor and Vice President of Sanma Provincial Government Council. He was 38 years old and the victim was around 10. The offending occurred when the victim was asleep in her room and the defendant entered and put his hand on the victim’s panty and touched her vagina over clothing. It was submitted that the current case is much more serious as the defendant touched the breasts and vagina of the victims and the touching was skin to skin. 

12.    The starting point of sentence in Moli was 4 years imprisonment and the end sentence was 2 years and 3 months. The Court declined to suspend the sentence on the basis of its seriousness and the defendant’s character as a Counselor and Vice President of Sanma Provincila Government Council.

13.    The prosecution further submitted that the correct starting point in this case should be 6 years imprisonment given that it is more serious than the offending in Moli. 

14.     The defence submitted that for consistency the appropriate starting point was 4 years imprisonment.

15.    I accept the submissions by the prosecution that this case is more serious than Moli as it involved two young victims, the touching was skin to skin and the same act was repeated. I adopt a global sentence start point of 5 years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently.

Guilty Plea and personal factors 

16.    You pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity as a sign remorse therefore the sentence start point is discounted by 33 %.

17.    A Same Day Report was filed on your behalf by your Probation Officer defendant some details about yourself. You are now 53 years old and you are from Okai village, South Malekula. You are the eldest in your family out of 8 children and you are a first-time offender. You are married and you have 5 children. You completed your education at Year 11 at Matevulu College. You are employed as a teacher in your community. Since the offending your employment was suspended and you now earn your living by selling green kava.  You are also a preacher and member of the presbyterian church in your community.

18.    Taking these factors into account, I reduce the starting point of your sentence by 4 months.

19.    Your Probation Officer indicates in your Same Day Report that you have served some time on remand in custody before being granted bail from May 10 2026 to 2 September 2026 which is roughly 4 months. This equates to 8 months imprisonment therefore your sentence start point is further reduced by 8 months.

20.    The report also notes that custom reconciliation was performed on your behalf to the two victims and their families which was accepted. The Items exchanged were not detailed in the reconciliation report but were reported to include some food, money and two pigs.

21.    I take this into account and reduce the starting point of sentence by 2 months.

End sentence 

22.    The end sentence I impose to be served concurrently is an end sentence of 2 years and 3 months imprisonment effective immediately.

23.    Given the circumstances, the seriousness of your offending and the fact that you were the Principal of the school attended by the two victims, a suspension of your sentence would convey the wrong message to the community.   A custodial sentence is warranted. 

24.    You have 14 days to appeal if you are not satisfied with the decision.

DATED at Luganville, Santo this 18th day of September, 2026

BY THE COURT

………………………
Dudley Aru
Judge