Teangabure v Republic [2007] KICA 11; Criminal Appeal 03 of 2007 (30 July 2007)

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

Criminal Appeal No 3 of 2007

BETWEEN

BUREUA TEANGABURE
Appellant

AND

THE REPUBLIC
Respondent

Before: Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Paterson JA

Counsel: Karotu Tiba for appellant
Birimaka Tekanene for respondent

Date of Hearing: 24 July 2007

Date of Judgment: 30 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

INTRODUCTION

[1]. Bureua Teangabure (the appellant) was convicted after pleading not guilty, on four counts arising from a group attack on a home and its occupants. He was sentenced to a total term of four years’ imprisonment and appeals the sentences of the ground that the total term was manifestly excessive.

[2]. The appeal was brought out of time, but leave to appeal out of time was given as Mr Tekanene, for the Republic, took no issue with leave being granted.

THE FACTS

[3]. The appellant was the leader of a group of at least nine people. They approached the house carrying knives, sticks, axes, stones and other weapons. The appellant was carrying a knife and a spear.

[4]. There was damage to the roof and the walls of the house as well as to utensils. Two persons were injured. The Chief Justice described the scene as one "of confusion and high emotion".

[5]. Several of the group, including the appellant, were charged with:

(a). Taking part in a riot and causing damage contrary to s 23(1) Public Order Ordinance Cap 82 (count 1);

(b). Wilfully and unlawfully destroying property contrary to s 319(1) Penal Code, Cap 67 (Count 2);

(c). Going armed in public contrary to s 25(1) Public Order Ordinance Cap 82 (Count 3).

The appellant was also charged with:

(d). Causing bodily harm contrary to s 238 Penal Code, Cap 67. (Count 4)

[6]. The appellant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of four years, six months, one year and two years’ imprisonment on counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

THE SENTENCE

[7]. The Chief Justice noted that the appellant was the leader and that affected the punishment he received. He was 39 years old with a long list of previous convictions going back to 1990. He had been imprisoned 11 times.

[8]. Although the facts were not covered extensively in the sentencing notes, the Chief Justice referred to his findings when he found the appellant guilty. He accepted evidence which depicted the events as both serious and frightening.

THE APPEAL

[9]. Mr Tiba, for the appellant submitted that when compared with the sentence given in R v Ubwaitoi [2006] KIHC 7/06 the sentence was manifestly excessive. In that case a 35 year old married man with five children was sentenced to a total of two years’ imprisonment on being convicted of taking part in a riot and causing damage, wilfully and unlawfully destroying property and going armed in public. It was submitted that a term of three years’ imprisonment was more appropriate in this case.

[10]. Mr Tekanene for the Republic submitted that the sentence adequately reflected the appellant’s criminality. He was the leader, had an extensive criminal record with several convictions for offences of violence and numerous sentences of imprisonment.

[11]. Ubwaitoi’s case was said to be of little assistance, because there was spontaneous offending in that case by a smaller group and the accused had a previous good character.

DISCUSSION

[12]. A principle of sentencing is deterrence, both general and specific. In this case it is particularly so because of the seriousness of the attack accompanied with dangerous weapons and the appellant’s history of violence. He was the only one of the group charged with causing bodily harm.

[13]. While parity with comparable sentences is also desirable there are differences between this case and Ubwaitoi. Ubwaitoi was a first offender, prominent in the community who had been provoked. The Chief Justice noted that these factors meant a lesser penalty than otherwise.

[14]. Taking these factors into account we do not see the sentence was manifestly excessive. This was serious offending by a person with a history of violence. The Chief Justice was entitled to show the community’s repugnance for such behaviour by imposing a sentence which would also serve as a deterrent.

RESULT

[15]. The appeal is dismissed.

Hardie Boys JA
Tompkins JA
Paterson JA