Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Joint Court of the New Hebrides

  Download original PDF

Public Prosecutor v Gigiru [1976] VUNHJC 42; Criminal (A) 38 of 1976 (3 September 1976)

JOINT COURT OF THE NEW HEBRIDES

Case No. 2509
Judgment No. (A) 38/76
of the 3rd September, 1976

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

v.

KALTALIU GIGIRU
NOEL KALTAL
HATY CIEL

JUDGMENT

The first accused, KALTALIU GIGIRU, a New Hebridean of Pango Village, Efate aged 23 years and the second accused NOEL KALTAL, a New Hebridean of Pango Village also, aged 24 years, were jointly charged that on the 30th June, 1976 at Pango on the Island of Efate they stole 5,000FNH, $A2.00 and a coloured pink towel, the property of Mrs. Magee. The third accused, HATY CIEL, a New Hebridean of Pango Village aged 21 years, was charged that on the 30th June 1976 at Pango, he received property, namely 1100FNH from the first accused knowing the same to have been stolen. The First accused and second accused pleaded guilty and the Court proceeded to deal with the charge against them.

The facts as outlined by the prosecution were that on 30th June, 1976 the complainant, Mrs. Magee, parked her car and went for a swim with her children at Pango Beach. On returning to the car she discovered that a pink towel, 5,000FNH and $A2.00 had been removed from her purse which had been inside a handbag. She complained to the police. The police investigated and interviewed the first accused who admitted the theft. 530FNH was at first recovered from him, then later a further 2000FNH. The accused made a cautioned statement admitting the offence. The second accused was also interviewed, he made a cautioned statement admitting the offence and from him there was recovered 500FNH and the towel. From other sources the police made a further recovery of 1100FNH.

The Native Advocate conceded that the facts were not substantially in dispute and submitted that the accused were on their way to go crabbing, having no prior intention to steal. While they were together with a third party, a motor car arrived and on the spur of the moment the offence was committed. Both accused co-operated with the police and were prepared to repay the balance money involved. The Native Advocate further submitted that both the first accused and the second accused were in some measure supporting relatives and hardship would be caused to such relatives if gaol sentences were imposed. The first accused admitted the following previous convictions:

The second accused admitted previous convictions as follows: