Public Prosecutor v Taseru

Court Supreme Court

Case type Criminal

Case number 138 of 2025

Hearing date 25 Aug 2025

Decision date 07 Oct 2026

Official PDF document

Judge(s) Justice Oliver Saksak

Defendant(s) Grem Taseru

Claimant(s) Public Prosecutor

Counsel Laura Lunabek for Public Prosecutor; Edward Nalyal for the Defendant

VERDICT

1. Grem Taseru was charged with two counts of sexual intercourse without consent contrary to sections 90(a) and 91 of the Penal Code Act [Cap. 135] that in the early hours of 12 October 2024 he (a) inserted his two fingers into the complainant’s vagina, and (b) subsequently inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent.

2. He denied the charges and trial hearings were held on 25 August 2025, 28 October 2025 and finally on 4 June 2026.

3. Directions for summaries and closing submissions were issued on 4 June 2026 at the request of both the Prosecution and Defence Counsel. Submissions were to have been filed by Prosecutions before 13 July 2026 and by Mr Nalyal by 22 July 2026. By 1st October 2026, neither Counsel had filed any submissions or summaries.

4. This verdict is formulated without the benefit of summaries and submissions from Counsel as directed.

5. Due to the considerable delay, those summaries and submissions must be disposed with.

6. The Prosecution has the high burden of proof of guilt on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The elements to be proven by the Prosecution were:

a) For Count 1 - Did the defendant insert his 2 fingers into the complainant’s penis?
- Did he do so without her consent?
b) For Count 2- - Did the defendant insert his penis into the complainant’s vagina?
- Did he do so without her consent?

7. The Prosecution adduced evidence from the complainant and three other witnesses namely: Wynona Netty Irira ( the complainant), Judith Iakavai, Pippa Yanambath and Dr Bonafice whose medical report was admitted into evidence without objection by Mr Nalyal.

8. As regards the allegation of insertion of two fingers into the vagina, only the evidence of the complainant was relevant. The evidence of Judith Iakavai and Pippa Yanambath were hearsay evidence and are not admissible. The Doctor’s Medical Report is unhelpful.

9. The defendant denied using his fingers. The evidence of the complainant was uncertain. She did not remember if it was one finger or two. Her evidence fell short of meeting the threshold standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the charge in Count 1 is not proved and I return the verdict of not-guilty.

10. As to the charge in Count 2- Again it is a charge under section 90 (a) of the Act; Sexual intercourse without consent. The use of force became irrelevant. Again the evidence of Judith Iakavai and Pippa Yanambath are hearsay and are inadmissible. The Doctor’s medical report is again not helpful. The only evidence remaining is that of the complainant.

11. The defendant did not deny that sexual intercourse took place. He denied the lack of consent. There was no complaint about sexual intercourse being obtained by the use of force under section 90 (b), therefore force was irrelevant.

12. When the complainant was recalled on 4th June 2026 on the application of the Prosecutor for leave to do so, her evidence became clear that upon she being told to go out and see the defendant, she did. And she told the Court that the defendant had asked her for sex and she agreed. Subsequently she went into the room, leaving the door unlocked so the defendant could follow her latter and have sexual intercourse with her. During the intercourse she heard a knock on the door and pushed off the defendant. She told the Court that after the knocking her cousin brother went into the room and sent the complainant out so that the defendant could sleep in the room with him.

13. The complainant told the Court she had been crying but there was no independent witness to confirm it. The cousin brother was not called to confirm that evidence. If there was any complaint by the complainant about the sexual intercourse upon her that night, the first person to have received the complaint was the cousin brother then and there. That was not the case.

14. The evidence of the complainant by itself was not sufficient, it is doubtful and as such, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the defendant.

15. Accordingly I find the second charge of sexual intercourse without consent under section 90 (a) of the Act was not proved. And I return the verdict of not-guilty.

16. The defendant is accordingly acquitted of the two charges against him.

DATED at Port Vila this 7th day of October 2026
BY THE COURT

Hon. Justice Oliver A Saksak