Taunteang v Republic [1997] KICA 13; Criminal Appeal 06 of 1996 (25 March 1997)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

TEUEANNA TAUNTEANG
Appellant

AND:

THE REPUBLIC
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 17 March 1997
Delivery of Judgment: 25 March 1997

The Appellant in person
Mr T Tabane for the Respondent

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Gibbs V.P., Connolly and Ryan JJ.A)

This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court by which the appellant Teueanna Taunteang was convicted of the offence of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The ground of appeal is that in all the circumstances the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The accused was represented at the trial, but appeared in person to argue his appeal.

The accused was charged with murder, the particulars being that on 21 May 1995 at Otowae Village on Onotoa, Island he stabbed Teannaki Tiem, using a knife and intentionally causing his death.

Evidence was adduced by the prosecution that on 21 May 1995 a meeting was being conducted by the council of the village of Otowae inside a maneaba. One witness, Kabua Nukai, testified that he was seated about 2 feet behind Teannaki in the maneaba. He heard a noise and saw the accused on top of the deceased. His right hand was around the deceased's neck and his left hand was on his stomach. The witness said that with both his hands he held the hand of the accused on the deceased's stomach, and tried to remove the hand. He saw the accused and the deceased struggling together, but did not see a knife at that stage. He removed the accused's hand and led the accused away from the deceased. He then saw a knife in the accused's hand, and he saw wounds on the deceased's stomach. He took the knife from the accused and called the special constable.

Another witness, Tangaua Kirabuke, gave evidence that he sat behind and very close to Teannaki in the maneaba. The accused entered the maneaba and sat beside him. He saw that the accused was holding a knife. He said that he saw the accused stab the deceased from behind in the stomach. Some people came to assist the victim. Kabua held the hand of the accused and so did another person named Beni. There was a struggle, and finally they managed to pull the accused away.

Evidence was given by a witness Teeru Timon that he spoke to the accused after he came out from the maneaba, and asked him why he stabbed a person. The accused replied: "Do you remember the person who embarrassed my father? I have stabbed him in the stomach with a knife". Teeru asked him why he did not make that clear by means of conversing with him. He replied that that was the end of that, and that he was ready for what would be faced by him. According to Teeru, the deceased was the uncle of the accused.

A nursing officer treated Teannaki with an IV drip and then examined him. He observed a wound about the navel, three inches in length and seven and a half inches deep. The intestine was protruding. He died next morning. After the death he examined the body and observed two cuts on his big intestine. These were in his opinion caused by a sharp object like a knife. Death was caused by loss of blood, by severe internal bleeding and burning pain, caused from his wound and the cuts on the intestine.

The question whether the accused caused the death of the deceased admitted of only one answer, and the learned trial judge was rightly satisfied of this beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was uncontested that the accused stabbed the victim with a sharp knife, and that he died as a result of the wound inflicted by the knife. The learned trial judge was satisfied that a struggle took place after the deceased had been stabbed, but there was no evidence that the struggle made the wound of the victim's stomach more serious. Even if it could be said that the act of the accused was not the whole cause of death, S.200 of the Penal Code provides that a person is deemed to have caused the death of another person although his act is not the immediate or the whole cause of death if his act or omission would not have caused death unless it had been accompanied by all act or omission of the person killed or of other persons.

It was submitted by counsel for the accused at the trial that the evidence did not prove malice aforethought beyond reasonable doubt, and that it was equally consistent with an intention to wound unlawfully. This submission was rejected, on the ground that the inference was inescapable that in stabbing the victim in the stomach with the knife the accused had the intention of causing grievous bodily harm or worse. That inference was clearly open to be drawn on the evidence.

At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant referred to his intoxication as the explanation for his action. Three witnesses gave evidence as to his condition. One, Kabua Nukai said that he could smell sour toddy on the accused but he could walk and he was able to speak. Another, Teeru Timon, said that the accused was drunk, but he could speak and he was able to walk properly. The third was a police officer, Teribea Tanibwarata, who said that when he arrested the accused he could smell a little bit of sour toddy on him.

In his judgment, the learned trial judge stated.

"There was some evidence that the accused was affected by alcohol but there was also evidence that he had no difficulty in walking and talking. There was no evidence that the accused was incapable of forming the requisite intention and no defence along the lines was raised".

Section 13(4) of the Penal Code provides that intoxication shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the person charged had formed any intention, specific or otherwise, in the absence of which he would not be guilty of the offence. In the instant case, it was necessary to take it into account for the purpose of determining whether the accused had formed the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Intoxication is not a defence which must be raised by the person charged, nor is it required that the accused be incapable of forming the requisite intention. However, it appears that the learned trial judge considered that the evidence indicated that although the accused was affected by alcohol, he had the intention of causing grievous bodily harm or worse to the deceased when he struck him with the knife. The conclusion was clearly open to him on the evidence.

There is no reason to think that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The appeal is dismissed.

Vice President
Judge of Appeal
Judge of Appeal