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

Criminal Case No. 39 of 2003

The Republic

vs

TIOTI UERETI

For the Republic: Ms Pole Tebao with Ms Pauline Beiatau
For the Accused: Ms Taoing Taoaba

Date of Hearing: 22 September 2003

REASONS FOR FINDING NO CASE TO ANSWER

The accused, Tioti Uereti, was charged with reckless driving causing death contrary to section 24(2) of the Traffic Ordinance.

Particulars

On 26 August 2002 on the Dai Nippon Causeway between Bairiki and Betio, in the Republic of Kiribati, Tioti Uereti drove a motor vehicle on a road recklessly and caused the death of Teuataake Teuatabo.

Form IK students of JSS Betio had a picnic in the school grounds to celebrate the end of second term. It began some time in the morning and lasted a number of hours. They decided to hire a truck and go for a ride to Buota and back. Times were given variously by the witnesses.

Between 10 and 20 students and a teacher went for the ride. They took with them in a basin or basins the remains of the food from the picnic.

Evidence was given by four students aged between 12 and 14, three girls and a boy. The only other witness was DC Tauia Ngauea, the investigating officer. Ms Tebao, Director of Public Prosecutions, tendered DC Tauia's helpful plan of the scene and legend. Also exhibited was the accused's caution statement.

Although, as to be expected, the evidence differed in detail, the outline of what happened was not in dispute.

Most of the students and the teacher travelled on the tray of the truck. According to the students, before they left the school, Tioti told them not to sit on the truck sides but on the floor. Two of the witnesses said he also told the teacher to look after the students. In his caution statement Tioti said he gave the warning not at the school but after they had stopped on the way, at a store. When the warning was given does not matter: it is common ground it was given and not only by Tioti but by the teacher as well. Some students, including the deceased, ignored the warning: from time to time or all the time they were sitting on the sides. The teacher gave the warning only once and must have ignored those who took no notice of it. 

The defendant drove slowly through Betio. On the causeway he increased speed. The witnesses said they were going "fast". The defendant's caution statement:-

But before we arrived on the bridge (on the Dai Nippon causeway) I reduced the speed to 50 km/ph since the road on the bridge was not made properly. I still maintained the speed of 50 km/ph when we passed the bridge. When I overtook the saloon car then I used a speed of 55 km/ph or 60 km/ph.

After going over the bridge the defendant saw a saloon car ahead. He went to pass it. A bus was coming in the opposite direction, from Bairiki. The defendant had to fall back before completing overtaking the car: he moved to his left again to get in behind the car. How violent that movement was I do not know: the witnesses described it vaguely but it was during the movement that the deceased fell over the side. He hit his head on the road and cracked his skull. The alarm was raised: the truck stopped some way down the road: it reversed: the boy was dead when they got back to him.

The Director of Public Prosecutions argued strongly against Ms Taoaba's submission of no case to answer. It is in deference to Ms Tebao's argument that I am writing these reasons for accepting Ms Taoaba's submissions.

First, the defendant warned the students not to sit on the sides of the truck. The teacher did, too, but most unfortunately did not repeat the warning as they were going along. It must have been a carefree atmosphere and admittedly the students were early teenagers but they should have been old enough to realize, even without being told, that sitting on the sides was dangerous. The defendant could not see what was going on in the back and could not know that warnings were being ignored.

Secondly, there is no evidence that the defendant was speeding. He drove slowly through Betio. He speeded up on the causeway but not on the evidence to a speed above the limit of 60 kph.

Thirdly the students had taken with them food and drink. One witness said the deceased was moving to get either food or drink when he fell. If he were not sitting down, even on the railing, when he fell he may have lost his balance irrespective of the movement of the vehicle.

With these considerations I could not find beyond reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty of the most serious offence of reckless driving causing death.

Having come to this conclusion I told Ms Taoaba that I had thought the defendant had a case to answer on careless driving (an offence pursuant to section 23 of the Traffic Ordinance) I invited her to take instructions as to her client either continuing with his defence on that charge or of pleading guilty to it. Ms Taoaba let me know he would plead guilty to careless driving. He was arraigned again and pleaded guilty.

His carelessness was in not seeing the approaching bus or at least in not seeing it in time to deter him from trying to pass the saloon car. They were some distance from the Bairiki end of the causeway: the road is straight, no obstruction to seeing what was coming. The bus must have been there to be seen. The defendant should not have tried to pass the saloon car. The attempt caused a developing dangerous situation for the bus and for those on the truck.

I shall hear counsel as to penalty.

Dated the day of September 2003

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice