Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Court of Appeal of Kiribati

Iabeta v Republic [2001] KICA 18; Criminal Appeal 02 of 2000 (5 April 2001)

IN THE KIRIBATI COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
KIRIBATI

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2000.

BETWEEN:

TITERA IABETA
Appellant

AND:

THE REPUBLIC
Respondent

Before: Casey JA
Bisson JA
Tompkins JA

Counsel: The appellant in person
Mr Titabu Tabane for respondent

Date of Hearing 28 March 2001
Date of Judgment 5 April 2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[11 Titera Iabeta was convicted by the Chief Justice in the High Court at Betio on 4 February 2000 of the offences of rape, attempted buggery and common assault committed an 24 January 1998 at Tarawa and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment totalling 6 years. He applies for leave to appeal against his convictions.

[2] The complainant, a woman of 33, gave evidence that she and her boy-friend were walking from a dance at Betio between 4 and 5 am when he was assaulted by two men and they became separated. She said they then grabbed her and forced her to the ground, and after removing her clothing had sexual intercourse with her in turn over her objections and struggles, the second man also attempting anal penetration. Shortly afterwards a police officer appeared to whom she complained of rape, and he referred in his evidence to her distressed condition. From her description he located the suspected offenders nearby, one of whom was the appellant. They denied the assault and any involvement with the complainant. Both were charged and did not give evidence at their trial, and both were convicted. In his decision the Chief Justice said that he found the complainant to be a good witness and that he had no reasonable doubt about the accuracy of her evidence.

[3] In his submissions to us the appellant pointed out that the doctor who examined her did not give evidence, which he felt would have assisted him, but he was unable to suggest how, as he had no knowledge of the doctor's findings. We were informed by Counsel for the Republic that he was no longer available at the time of trial. The appellant also raised the absence of evidence from the complainant's boy-friend, who was the subject of the assault charge. Again he did not know what he could have said to help his defence, and we understood from Counsel that he could not be located, and that the Republic relied on the complainant's evidence alone to prove that charge. That evidence was accepted by the Chief Justice.

[4] In view of the Judge's acceptance without reservation of the complainant's evidence, the appellant had an impossible task in attempting to persuade us that the convictions should be set aside. The matters he raised in his submissions certainly gave us no cause for concern about them, and his application for leave to appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Casey JA
Bisson JA
Tompkins JA