IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
(BEFORE THE HON R LUSSICK C.J.)

HCCrC 2/96

THE REPUBLIC

versus

TABERANNANG TEKIERA

Mr D Sim for the Republic
Mr D Lambourne for the Accused

SENTENCE

The accused was originally charged with murder. He pleaded not guilty, the trial began and the Court then heard evidence from three of the seven witnesses the prosecution proposed to call. Both counsel conferred during the luncheon adjournment after which counsel for the accused informed the court that his client would be prepared to plead guilty to manslaughter. Counsel for the Republic stated that this course would be acceptable to the Attorney-General.

At this stage the court had not, of course, heard the whole of the case for the prosecution. However, there was nothing in the evidence of the three witnesses already heard which would be capable of proving to the required standard the element of malice aforethought. I therefore decided to accept the accused's plea of guilty to manslaughter and convicted him accordingly.

The accused is a 50-year old married man leading a subsistence lifestyle with seven children aged from 6 to 26. All are single. I accept that he is a person of previous good character and is well respected in his community. He is one of the unimane of the village maneaba and is a leader in his church. He was described by one of the prosecution witnesses as a quiet person of good character who does not get into fights easily and who loves his wife and family.

At the time of the offence the wife of the accused was ill in hospital, leaving the accused with the responsibility of caring for the family. His 13-year old daughter was living with his sister, the wife of the deceased. The reason for this was that the sister was a school teacher who lived in the school compound, making it easier for the young daughter to get to school.

On the day before the incident the young daughter had gone fishing with the deceased. The deceased had made some improper advances to her causing her to run away. The matter was reported to the police who were in the course of investigating the matter when the deceased was killed by the accused.

The story that reached the accused the next day was a much more serious one. It was not just that improper advances had been made to his daughter but that the deceased had tried to rape her. The accused, upon hearing this was, at first, quite understandably upset. However, according to the first prosecution witness, he soon calmed down. Nevertheless, later that day he went to see the deceased armed with a toddy knife. I am told by his counsel that the accused is unable to remember anything about the fight that ensued and that he was unable to provide the police with any information. According to two of the prosecution witnesses, the deceased was able to arm himself with a fighting stick - te marang - when he saw that the accused had a knife. A fighting stick is made of ironwood sharpened at both ends. The two prosecution witnesses who saw events leading up to the fight both ran away before it started and so cannot throw much light on what happened after that. However, it is clear from the medical report that during the fight the deceased suffered a cut to the front of the right arm at the elbow joint, cuts to two fingers of the right hand, a cut behind the right ear, a cut to the back of the right arm below the elbow and a cut to the right wrist. He died from severe loss of blood.

I am told by counsel for the accused that the accused suffered a broken arm in the fight. I am also told, and I accept that the accused has apologised to the family of the deceased and to his sister and that his apologies have been accepted. I assume that this means that henceforth both families will be able to live in peace.

Counsel for the accused has cited what he describes as two comparable sentences and submits that those sentences are appropriate to the present case. The first case was Katieua Bename v. The Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1989) where the Court of Appeal reduced a sentence of six years for manslaughter to four years commencing from the date of arrest. The other case was a decision of the High Court, The Republic v. Taitai Reem (HCCrC 13/93) where the accused was sentenced to four years' imprisonment commencing the date of arrest after having pleaded guilty to manslaughter. In that case the victim had been stabbed five times with a knife.

As I pointed out to counsel for the accused, those two cases do not paint the entire picture of sentencing for the crime of manslaughter in Kiribati. For instance, in the case of Timi Tebetanga v. The Republic (Crim. Appeal 1/80) the Kiribati Court of Appeal confirmed a sentence of seven years' imprisonment for manslaughter. In that case, counsel for the appellant submitted that a sentence of five years' imprisonment was the normal sentence for manslaughter of the grown degree on Kiribati. In the case of Enoka Botibara v. The Republic (Crim. Appeal 1/82) the Kiribati Court of Appeal reduced a conviction for murder to one for manslaughter and imposed a seven-year sentence. However, I appreciate that what counsel for the accused is submitting is that the sentences more in line with the present case are the two which he has cited. I am inclined to agree.

I accept that the accused's plea of guilty is a timely one. It appears that he was willing to plead guilty to manslaughter but that this plea was not acceptable to the Attorney General until after three of the prosecution witnesses had given evidence in the trial.

I have taken into account everything that has been said on behalf of the accused and also of course the particular circumstances of the case itself. The conclusion I have reached is that justice will be served by imposing the following sentence.

The accused is sentenced to four (4) years' imprisonment to commence from the date he was taken into custody, that is, the 6th December 1995.

THE HON R LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(21/03/96)