Bauriri v Republic [1996] KIHC 10; HCCrA 12.95 (29 April 1996)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
(BEFORE THE HON R LUSSICK C.J.)

HCCrA 12/95

REWATA BAURIRI

versus

THE REPUBLIC

Mr B Berina for the Appellant
Ms P Atanraoi for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by the Tamana Magistrates' Court sitting with extended jurisdiction on 1^st August 1995 of Larceny contrary to section 266(a)(i) of the Penal Code (Cap. 67). The prosecution case was that the Assistant Treasurer to the Tamana Island Council paid in a total amount of $597-80 to the appellant who was Treasurer. That amount was made up of various payments to the Island Council as evidenced by ten (10) sub-receipts. The appellant later issued a receipt for $32-00 but failed to account for the balance of $565-80 which was a payment for copra tax for which a single sub-receipt was issued.

The appellant was convicted and bound over to keep the peace for six months. She now appeals on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.

Among the witnesses called for the prosecution was the Assistant Treasurer. He testified that when money is deposited it is accompanied by a Form "A" in duplicate. This form sets out the various sums paid in and their total. The procedure was for the appellant as Treasurer to keep the original and give the Assistant Treasurer the copy. There is provision at the bottom for both to sign. All Form As for that year were signed by the appellant with the exception of the particular one in question. The total shown was $597-80. The witness said that when he gave the accused the money he expected to be issued with a receipt, which was the usual practice. However, on this occasion the appellant told him there was a new procedure for depositing money which did not involve giving him a receipt. The witness was cross-examined by the appellant who suggested to him that she had told him she would only issue a receipt for $32-00 and that he had only deposited $32-00. The witness' reply to both of those propositions was that she was lying.

Another prosecution witness gave evidence that, although he did not see how much money the Assistant Treasurer deposited, he did hear him ask for a receipt and the appellant tell him that there was a new rule in operation. The Assistant Treasurer then went away without a receipt.

The appellant gave evidence that the Assistant Treasurer paid in only $32-00. She said that on the Form A retained by her she wrote out a summary showing that only $32-00 had been deposited leaving a shortage of $565-80 and that after being convinced that he did in fact only deposit $32-00 the Assistant Treasurer signed that document. I note that the Form A tendered as part of Exhibit "B" was also signed by the Assistant Treasurer but that no such summary appears on that copy. In cross-examination the appellant admitted that she did not issue a receipt to the Assistant Treasurer but explained that she sent the original receipt to Tarawa. She also admitted that she did not report the discrepancy to the Clerk of the Island Council but claimed that she had reported it to headquarters in Bairiki.

It is clear from the magistrates' decision that they preferred the evidence of the Assistant Treasurer to that of the appellant. They were satisfied that the appellant did not issue a receipt to the Assistant Treasurer when the money was first deposited, nor did she report the shortage to the Clerk of the Island Council. These failures to follow the normal procedure obviously left them in no doubt of the appellant's guilt.

The magistrates had the advantage of hearing the witnesses and observing their demeanour. They were entitled to accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was that a sum of $597-80 was deposited with the appellant of which she accounted for only $32-00. As to the balance the only logical inference is that she kept it for herself. That evidence is, in my view, sufficient to support the conviction. I have not been persuaded that the magistrates fell into error or that there are circumstances raising a reasonable doubt whether the conviction was right.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

THE HON R LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE
(29/04/96)