[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] [Report an error] [F.A.Q.] Supreme Court of Nauru

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Nauru >> 1985 >> [1985] NRSC 2

[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]

Republic v Karl [1985] NRSC 2; [1980-1989] NLR (20 November 1985)

[1980-1989] NLR
[Ed - No page no. in original]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

CRIMINAL CASE No. 3 OF 1985

THE REPUBLIC

vs.

NICHOLAS KARL

JUDGMENT

I have read the Probation Officer's report.

The crime of rape is a very serious crime and within the crime itself, there are degrees of seriousness.

The Court considering the matter usually takes into consideration the manner in which the rape was carried out; whether or not there was a physical damage resulting from the act; whether there was a psychological or mental damage to the girl raped. In this case, the person raped has neither been seen or heard by the Court and that is the matter which must weigh heavily in your favour. The medical evidence itself does not suggest that there was a rape involving much physical harm and evidence has been produced to the Court, and the Court has had the benefit of looking at the report put in your by your counsel that the girl raped appeared to be reasonably calm and composed, close after the rape. I have had the benefit of considering the case submitted by your counsel, that is a case of 1979. There is one significant difference between that case and your case.

The offender had an appalling list of nasty offences. However, his age was close to yours and the victim of his was an expatriate woman. Now the fact that the last case proven in this Court was in 1979 indicates one clear fact and an important one because the Court must ascertain whether or not the offences are prevalent. The fact that the last case of proven rape was in 1979 shows that the offence is not prevalent. So I take these facts into consideration that you are a first offender, you are 21 years of age, record of this Court is shows not to be prevalent in Nauru and the fact that there must be a sentence to deter others from doing what you have done.

Being as I am, guided and to some extent restricted by the sentence in the previous Court case and taking into consideration the matters I have referred to, I propose to sentence you to three years imprisonment.

CHIEF JUSTICE

20th November, 1985