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

High Court Criminal Case 37 of 2001

The Republic

vs

Taumoa Nawere

For the Republic: Ms Pauline Beiatau
For the Accused: Ms Taoing Taoaba

Date of Hearing: 6 May 2002

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

Ms Taoaba has submitted that her client has no case to answer.

I called on Ms Beiatau to respond to the submission. Ms Beiatau pointed out that to be boiling toddy at 8 o’clock in the evening is very unusual, the more so when the accused had a sick child. I accept this, together with several other things – for example his anger that the nurse was not at the clinic to give him medicine for his child, his saying, “The nurse shouldn’t be surprised if her house is burnt out” – is suspicious but suspicion does not amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused denied to several witnesses that he lit the fire: all he said was that he was afraid he would be blamed despite what he said was his innocence. He has made no admissions of lighting it. No one saw him light the fire. Ms Taoaba in cross examination brought out that the accused and the witness Nei Nakita often borrow from each other and return what they have borrowed. On this occasion the accused borrowed and returned the matches.

The Republic must meet a very high standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt – before it can succeed in any criminal prosecution. The Republic has not, even on its own case, met the standard at this trial. To use the test when a judge sits with a jury in a criminal court, “No jury properly directed could find the accused guilty on the case put forward by the prosecution”. Sitting as a judge alone I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution case that the accused is guilty.

I accept Ms Taoaba’s submission that the accused has no case to answer.

The Hon Robin Millhouse QC
Chief Justice