Police v Tangapiri [2005] CKHC 6; CR 462-464 of 2004 (25 November 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

CR NOS: 462,463,464/04

BETWEEN:

POLICE

AND:

PATRICK TANGAPIRI

Mr Elikana for the Police
Mr C Little for the Defendant

Date of Sentence: 25 November 2005

SENTENCE OF WILLIAMS CJ

[1] Mr Tangapiri, you have been convicted on three charges under Section 251A(b) for using a document for pecuniary advantage. It may be slightly difficult for you to understand how that comes about because you are not the one who used the document. But as Mr Little will doubtless have explained to you, once you took the instructions from Mr Pare you and Mrs Numanga carried out the rest of the actions which created the offending. So you are made part of what happened after the instructions were given.

[2] I accept what has been said on your behalf. First, that you have a blameless record to date, secondly that you are acting on instructions from your Minister and thirdly and importantly, that once you had proper legal advice you immediately admitted your part in the offending.

[3] You are entitled to a significant credit for having assisted the Prosecution and, as I said in the judgment in the Pare case, your evidence was central to the Prosecution case and without it the case could not have succeeded.

[4] You have a very good record with the Ministry of Works over a long period of time and you are a very valuable worker. I do not want to do anything which will create any problems for you in terms of your family who depend on you. I am told, and I hope this is right, that your position with the Ministry is secured.

[5] Be all that as it may, the fact is that it was wrong for you to accept instructions from the Minister to charge up things to the Project account and not his personal account. I think it is true that this is behaviour which is attributable to your belief that you should always follow instructions from the Minister. Unfortunately, in the present case, it was the wrong thing to do.

[6] As to what is appropriate, the original recommendation of the Probation Service was that you should be ordered to provide community service for 6 months but as the Senior Probation Officer has rightly acknowledged, that sentence is inappropriate in view of the way in which the Court has dealt with Mr Pare who is the primary offender.

[7] The solution which the Court thinks is most appropriate is that under s. 113 you will, as with Mr Pare, be in a situation where instead of passing sentence you will be ordered to appear for sentence if called upon, to do so within the next 6 months. This means that so long as you behave properly between now and the end of that 6 months period then the matter is ended.

[8] But to signify the fact that the Court condemns this kind of behaviour, you will be ordered to pay $500 toward the cost of the Prosecution. That may sound strange since you helped the Prosecution but it is the only way that I can, under s. 113, add some kind of pecuniary punishment. It is in effect to be regarded as a fine because it allows the Court to not impose the community service penalty.

[9] So far as the suggested alternative is concerned of discharging you without conviction, I am reluctant to do that. It would convey the impression in the community that there was really nothing done wrong here. There was definitely something done wrong and for that reason I have elected to proceed under s. 113.

CHIEF JUSTICE