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

Criminal Case No. 68 of 2003

The Republic

vs

Maruia Taiau, Teea Marewe,
Tennang Rurunga & Tererei Taburimai

For the Republic: Ms Pole Tebao
For the 1st Accused: Ms Jacqueline Huston
For the 2nd Accused: Mr Aomoro Amten
For the 3rd Accused: Ms Taoing Taoaba
For the 4th Accused: Ms Taoing Taoaba

Date of Hearing: 4 March 2004

JUDGMENT ON VOIR DIRE (2)
(Ex Tempore)

The Director of Public Prosecutions has applied to tender the caution statement of Maruia. His counsel, Ms Huston, has vigorously opposed the tender. She has taken, I am sure, every possible point.

She complained of sloppy police work: the caution statement was not signed in all places where her client signed by the questioning police officer Teioo and his partner the village warden Tokia. She is quite right but these are trifles and I ignore them. 

Ms Huston has complained that her client was not given due process because he was not taken before a court. That is so but the requirement that a defendant should be brought before a court has been ignored for longer than anyone remembers. Because of that I made it clear some months ago that I would give the police until the beginning of this year to comply strictly with the law. This incident was last October. I do not exercise my discretion for that reason to exclude the statement.

Ms Huston complained that her client could not have known that his first so-called "open statement" would not be used in court against him. I gather that it contains admissions. Open statements are not admitted as the maker of the statement has not been cautioned. I have become increasingly uneasy about these open statements in which the police apparently get admissions and then take their investigations from there. I do not think the police should in future take two statements, one open, the other after a caution. As in other places, the police should take only one statement and that after a proper caution, for the very reason of which Ms Huston complains. Had her client said that he was influenced in making the second statement by what he had already admitted, there would be weight in her argument. As it is, her client said nothing at all about this. I therefore put no weight in this trial on that complaint.

Perhaps Ms Huston's strongest complaint was that her client was threatened with being released and so being at the mercy of the victim's relatives. I have already made findings of credibility about Constable Teioo and village warden Tokia: having heard them again on this voir dire those findings stand. They deny that this alleged threat was made. More decisively 
Ms Huston's client several times in his evidence said he wanted to be released: so it would have been no threat at all.

Finally there was Maruia's complaint that he had been told that the police knew what had happened because the other two had told them. I expect he already knew that from his two companions because these three young men were together in the same cell.

Despite Ms Huston's persuasiveness I cannot accept any of her submissions. The prosecution has satisfied the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was made voluntarily.

In the exercise of my discretion the caution statement will be admitted.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice