In the High Court of Kiribati
Criminal Jurisdiction
Held at Betio
Republic of Kiribati

High Court Criminal Case 18 of 2001

The Republic

vs

Morou Tamaroa

For the Republic: Mr Tion Nabau, State Advocate
For the Accused: Ms Taoing Taoaba, People's Lawyer

Date of Hearing: 21 December 2001

SENTENCE

You have pleaded guilty to three counts, one each of arson, damaging property and criminal trespass.

Your presence here in Court today stems from your behaviour on the afternoon of 28 April this year. You were drunk. You had an argument with your aunt Toromita, during which you claim she said some unpleasant things to you. You resolved to get her back by damaging her property.

You went off in search of a lighter and managed to get one from Tekiata. By the time you got back to your aunt's house she had gone and you set fire to the thatch on the roof of her house. Fortunately both for you and your aunt, Tekiata came after you to retrieve his lighter. He was able to put the fire out, limiting the amount of damage caused. You were still angry and you lashed out with your foot, kicking the wall of the house causing some damage.

There is some dispute as to the value of the damage caused, with the prosecutor putting it at something over $500. However, as Mr Nabau has been unable to assist me with any specific details of the damage, I am inclined to accept your counsel's assertion that the extent of the damage was substantially less than the figure given me by Mr Nabau. In any event had it not been for Tekiata's intervention it is likely that the whole house would have gone up in flames.

Arson is a very serious offence. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Unfortunately arson is far too prevalent an offence in Kiribati. This court has said over and over again that, in the usual circumstances, a conviction for arson will attract a sentence of imprisonment. However, at the same time the court has recognized that where arson has arisen out of a family dispute, there may be appropriate circumstances for suspending such a sentence.

You are a young man, only 20 years of age. You have a wife and a young child to look after. If you were sent to prison they would suffer as a result of your actions. You need to understand that your responsibilities to them are such that you cannot afford to do a stupid thing like this again. You are obviously incapable of holding your drink. There are good reasons why the law of this country does not allow persons under the age of 21 to consume alcohol. You would be well advised to stay away from alcohol altogether. I appreciate that your aunt said things to you that you were not happy about but the way in which you dealt with that situation is unacceptable.

You have apologised to your aunt and the damage to her house has been repaired. Family harmony has been restored. You co-operated with Police after your arrest and you have pleaded guilty here today. These are significant matters in your favour.

In the circumstances I am of the view that an appropriate sentence for the count of arson in this case is one of nine months' imprisonment. However in your case the sentence will be suspended for a period of two years. What this means is that if you commit any offence punishable with imprisonment during the next two years you will be brought back before this Court and punished, not only for that offence, but you will have to serve the nine months' imprisonment in respect of this matter.

As the counts of damaging property and criminal trespass are intrinsically linked with the count of arson I do not intend to impose any penalty in respect of those charges.

You are convicted on your own plea of guilty of the offences of arson, damaging property and criminal trespass. In respect of the arson count I hereby sentence you to a period of imprisonment for nine months, such sentence to be suspended for a period of two years. In respect of the counts of damaging property and criminal trespass you are convicted without penalty.

David Lambourne
Commissioner
21 December 2001