Toakarawa v Republic [2006] KICA 9; Criminal Appeal 04 of 2006 (26 July 2006)

IN THE KIRIBATI COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

Criminal Appeal 4 of 2006

BETWEEN:

TAMTON TOAKARAWA
Appellant

AND:

THE REPUBLIC
Respondent

Before: Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Fisher JA

Counsel for Appellant: Karotu Tiba
Counsel for Respondent: Teretia Mantaia

Date of Hearing: 20 July 2006
Date of Judgment: 26 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Introduction

1. Tamton Toakarawa appeals against a sentence of three years imprisonment imposed in the High Court of Kiribati on 17 May 2006 following his plea of guilty to one charge of causing grievous harm with intent to cause grievous harm.

Background

2. The appellant was a 22 year old married man. His wife was four months pregnant. On the night in question he returned home in an intoxicated state after drinking with friends. An argument developed between him and his wife. He began beating her. When she escaped to another house he followed her and dragged her home by the hair. There he continued beating her and bit her on the nose, cheek, lips and fingers of both hands. He resisted attempts by the neighbours to intervene. The Police had to be called.

3. The injuries sustained by the wife included swelling over the centre of the forehead, wounds to the bridge of the nose, the left cheek and the right side of the mouth and bite marks to the fingers on both hands. The upper and lower lips on the right side of the mouth were bitten off exposing the teeth. Sadly, the indications are that she will be disfigured for life.

4. On the day after the incident the appellant claimed that he had been so intoxicated that he could not clearly remember what had occurred. He apologised for his actions and later reconciled with his wife.

Sentencing in the High Court

5. On sentence the Chief Justice emphasised that domestic violence was not a private matter; that it was the concern of everyone; that it was shameful; that it was to be strongly condemned; that it was to be severely punished; that these actions would have been a very serious crime whoever the victim; and the fact that it was his own wife made it even worse. On the other hand the Chief Justice noted the reconciliation, the apology, the state of drunkenness; the absence of previous convictions; and the early plea of guilty.

The Appeal

6. In this court Mr Tiba submitted that the sentence of three years imprisonment was excessive. He emphasised that the appellant had reconciled with his wife, had no previous convictions, and had a family to look after.

7. Ms Mantaia helpfully pointed out by reference to authority that assaults on wives are to be treated as serious matters of public concern and that a wife’s forgiveness of her husband does not affect the court’s duty to impose a sentence appropriate to the gravity of the offence.

8. The extraordinary ferocity and duration of this attack makes it a particularly bad case of its kind. So does the permanent disfigurement.

9. We respectfully agree with the Chief Justice’s comments, both as to violence against wives in general and as to the conduct of the appellant. There is nothing inappropriate in the sentence of three years imprisonment. The appeal is dismissed.

Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Fisher JA