Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Kiribati

Republic v Eti [2025] KIHC 61; Criminal Case 05521 of 2025 (19 September 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE 2025-05521

BETWEEN: THE REPUBLIC

AND: BEWNAN ETI

Date of Hearing: 27 August 2025
Date of Judgment: 19 September 2025

Appearances: Mr Siose Fatali for the Accused

Ms Kanrooti Aukitino for the Republic

R U L I N G for Striking Out Application

1. Counsel for the Accused applied to have the case struck out for want of prosecution due to the failure of Counsel for the Republic to attend the Pre-Trial Conference (PTC) held on July 25 of this year.
   
2. The case was scheduled before the Pre-Trial Conference for the first time on June 6, where Counsel for the Republic attended and was assigned to serve the accused for the next PTC date.
   
3. The second PTC occurred on July 4, with both Counsels present. The matter was adjourned to allow disclosures to be made within two weeks.
   
4. On July 25, the case was called before the PTC again to determine if it was ready to be listed before the court. Counsel for the Republic did not appear without reason. Counsel for the Accused informed the PTC clerk that disclosure had not yet taken place and requested that the case be listed before this court for striking out.
   
5. Counsel for the accused relies on section 10(1) of the Constitution, which affirms the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. The failure of the Republic’s counsel to attend the PTC, where parties were supposed to confirm the readiness of the case, caused a delay in prosecuting the matter.
   
6. I have heard from Counsel for the Republic regarding reasons not to strike out the case. She explained her absence from the PTC, which was not intentional, as she felt very sick and was unable to inform her office or the court. She argued that the charges against the accused are very serious offenses involving indecent assault on a 16-year-old girl. Her reasons supporting her position against the striking out are as follows;
   
   • - No prejudice to the accused due to the Prosecutor’s absence, and no trial rights have been compromised.
   • - There is public interest in keeping the case open since the charges involve allegations of indecent assault, which have significant implications for victim protection and public safety.
   • - The right to a fair trial under the Constitution also applies to the victim, not only the accused.
     
7. The Republic referenced the case of Republic v Kaiue, High Court Criminal Case No 2 of 2003, (5 August 2003), wherein the High Court underscored the necessity of administering justice through appropriate trial procedures, rather than circumventing such processes through premature dismissal.
   
8. After reviewing the aforementioned submissions, I acknowledge the reasons provided for the absence of Counsel for the Republic. I observe that this was the first occasion on which the Republic failed to appear at the Pre-Trial Conference or court hearings for this particular case, and I hope that it will be the last. I concur that the case should proceed and that the charges against the accused should not be dismissed solely on this incident. Such dismissal would be unjust to the victim involved in this matter.
   
9. I order that disclosures be made before the close of business on Tuesday, September 23, next week. If not, the case will be struck out. The parties are required to appear before this Court on this coming Wednesday, September 24, for the hearing date to be set.
   

Order Accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice