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

Republic v Burentarawa [2025] KIHC 65; Criminal Case 4 of 2023 (24 September 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE 4 of 2023

BETWEEN: THE REPUBLIC

AND: TOKANNUKA BURENTARAWA

Date of Hearing: 17 September 2025
Date of Judgment: 24 September 2025

Appearances: Ms Fuatino Noa for the Republic
Mr Banuera Berina for the Accused

J U G D M E N T - Sentence

The Offence

1. Tokanuuka Burentarawa was charged with one count of grievous harm with intent contrary to section 218(a) of the Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty, and the trial proceeded, during which he was found not guilty of that offence but guilty of a lesser offence of causing grievous harm contrary to section 220 of the Penal Code.
   

The Undisputed Fact

2. The alleged incident occurred on February 15, 2022. The Republic called five witnesses, and the accused testified. Based on the evidence, the following paragraphs present what I consider undisputed facts.
   
3. The victim, a police officer, was sitting on his motorbike near the accused's house, talking with his friend. His young son was with him on the motorbike. This was during the COVID-19 lockdown. The accused was cleaning around his house with his children when he saw the victim. He suddenly felt the urge to fight him, so he shouted at the victim to prepare himself because he was going to punch him. The accused then approached and immediately punched the victim.
   
4. He punched him in the face, pulled him to the ground, and kept punching him. The victim felt severe pain in his right arm and realized it was broken. The bike fell over, along with his young son who was on the motorcycle with him. While on the ground, the accused continued beating him. The victim lost the lavalava he was wearing when he fell and was beaten repeatedly, so he ran away naked. The accused chased after him, continuing to beat and kick him. The victim fell against the neighbor's wall, and while on the ground, he was still assaulted. People from that house came outside.
   
5. When the fight ended, the accused offered to take the victim to the hospital, but he refused. At the hospital, the victim was examined and found to have an injury to his right arm with two broken bones. He underwent surgery, and a metal rod was inserted into his arm, as shown by the two X-ray images tendered to the court without objection. He testified that his arm is still weak even after the surgery; sometimes it goes numb, and he cannot lift heavy objects.
   

Aggravating factors

6. Counsel for the Republic presents the following aggravating factors;
   1. The victim is left with a foreign object in his arm.
   2. The victim’s arm has a permanent scar and is still numb and weak.
   100. The incident took place on the public road where every citizen is supposed to walk freely without the risk of being attacked.
   4. The victim is a police officer; the incident undermines public officers who are law enforcers.
   5. The victim was sitting on his motorcycle with his young child when the offender attacked him. The child watched his father being beaten the whole time.
   6. The young child fell off the motorbike when his father was being beaten. When his father fell off the motorbike, he also fell along with it. The victim tried his best to prevent the motorbike from tipping over because of his young son, who was also sitting with him on the bike. The young boy was left unattended after he fell.
      
7. The Prosecution proposes a starting point of three years because the injuries caused to the victim are severe. According to Counsel, the starting band for sentencing in grievous harm cases is three to six years, which is applicable here. This is in line with the case of Republic v Teriao [2013] KICA 12; Criminal Appeal 02, 2013 (23 August 2013).
   

Mitigating factors

8. Counsel for the offender submits these mitigating factors;
   1. The offender offered to plead guilty to section 220, grievous harm, at the start of the trial, but the prosecution insisted on charging him with grievous harm with intent. This should be treated as an early plea; therefore, he should receive credit for this.
   2. He is the first-time offender.
   100. No intention of causing serious bodily harm.
   4. He did not use any weapon when he inflicted serious harm on the victim.
   5. He stopped beating the victim once he realized the victim was injured.
   6. He offered to take the victim to the hospital, but his offer was declined.
   7. He offered to apologise to the victim multiple times, but the victim or his wife did not accept his apology.
   8. He is a 40-year-old married man with four young children to care for, as his wife works full-time as a nurse.
   9. He is unemployed but runs a small truck hire business and a retail shop. He uses the little money from his small business to pay for their youngest child's school fees, who attends Rurubao Primary School.
      
9. Counsel requests a suspended sentence, arguing that he is unlikely to commit the crime again because what he did was impulsive and would not happen again. He describes the incident as an isolated event and expresses deep regret. A custodial sentence would negatively impact his children’s education, as he cares for them while his wife works full-time.
   
10. Counsel argues that the sentencing range referenced in Republic v Teriao applies only to life-threatening cases and does not apply to offenses under section 220. In Teriao case the offence was punishable by life imprisonment, while only seven years' imprisonment is specified for grievous harm offences under section 220.
    
11. Counsel further argues that the sentencing in the case of Republic v Beiata [2022] KIHC 32; Criminal Case 60 of 2021 (August 2, 2022) is relevant here. In that case, the offender bit the victim's lip, tearing off the lower lip. The court sentenced the offender to eighteen months in prison, suspended for a period of two years. Mitigating factors considered included his early plea, a clean police report, remorse, and the fact that the accused took full responsibility for his actions.
    
12. In another case, Republic v Kamauti [2018] KIHC 48; Criminal Case 36 of 2017 (31 October 2018), the offender stabbed her husband once in his right chest; the wound was 2 cm long and 2.5 cm deep. The wound was stitched and healed without any complications, other than scarring. The offender was sentenced to one year imprisonment, suspended for two years. The court took into account the fact that she had children who would be affected by any sentence of imprisonment and the unlikelihood of reoffending.
    
13. Only two aggravating factors were presented by counsel for the offender: that the offender approached the victim to fight him while the victim was not there to cause a fight, as he was just telling stories with his friend, and that the offender continued assaulting the victim even after the victim ran away. Another aggravating factor I would add is that the offender repeatedly beat the victim even when the victim did not fight back.
    
14. I have considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and agree that the sentencing band mentioned in Teriao does not apply to this specific case because the harm suffered is not life-threatening and the penalty is not life imprisonment.
    
15. Given the circumstances of this case, in which the victim suffered permanent injury to his arm, where a foreign object was inserted but the arm remains weak and numb at times, the appropriate starting point is two years. The injury in this case is as severe as in Beiata, where the offender ripped off the lower lip of the victim, which resulted in part of the victim's lower gum being exposed.
    
16. For all aggravating factors mentioned by both Counsels, I add 12 months.
    
17. For an early plea, one-third of your sentence is reduced. One month is also reduced for a clean police report, and a further one month for the rest of the mitigating factors. The end result is eighteen months' imprisonment.
    
18. I have considered your Counsel’s submission regarding the non-custodial sentence, and I do not believe the circumstances of your case justify a suspension. I sympathize with your children that you will leave them, but you should have thought about your children before you started attacking the victim. The victim was with his young child when you began assaulting him, and you did not consider how your actions would affect the child when he fell off the motorbike with his father. Worst of all, the child witnessed the entire incident while his father was being beaten.
    
19. Additionally, your anger was triggered when the victim turned your truck around because of your invalid pass. Your counsel informed this court that you became angry with the victim due to his bullying behavior toward others. This should not give you the right to judge his bad behavior or anyone else's. You also said you wanted to fight him because you just wanted to see yourself in a fight with him. Your counsel stated that the fight was not about the victim being a police officer. Still, it was the incident where he turned your truck around because of your invalid pass that initially caused your anger or hostility toward the victim, claiming he was rude, acting as if he had not known you before. He is a law enforcement officer, and what he did when he turned your truck around was part of his duty during the COVID-19 closure. A clear message must be sent to the public to prevent such disrespectful behavior toward law enforcement officers, making people believe they can penalise them for doing their jobs.
    
20. Additionally, the injuries sustained by the victim are very serious and permanent. The foreign objects will remain in his arm permanently. His arm is still weak and numb at times.
    
21. All of the above factors make your case unique and more serious than other cases, such as Beiata and Kamauti, where a non-custodial sentence was given. Therefore, you will serve your sentence in prison, effective immediately.
    

Summary

22. The offender, Tokannuka Burentarawa, has been found guilty of causing grievous harm contrary to section 220 of the Penal Code.
    
23. Tokannuka Burentarawa is sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment.
    
24. He will serve his prison time effective immediately from today.
    

The Hon TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA

CHIEF JUSTICE