Republic v Beiata - sentence [1996] KIHC 14; HCCrC 22.95 (13 June 1996)

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

HCCrC 22/95

THE REPUBLIC

versus

ITIMATANG BEIATA
EKENIMAN TOAURU
KATANGA TATIRENGA
TAKABWEBWERE BEIATA

Mr T Tabane and Ms T Beero for the Republic
Mr D Lambourne for the Accused

THE REPUBLIC

versus

BARAAM IORIM

Mr T Tabane & Ms T Beero for the Republic
Mr D Lambourne for the Accused

SENTENCE

I have already dealt with the facts of this case in my decision and I do not intend to refer to them at any length here. The accused Baraam has been convicted of causing grievous harm contrary to section 218 (a) of the Penal Code upon an indictment for murder. I am told that Baraam is aged 18, is not married and has no children and prior to this offence he had been living in Buariki with relatives. He in fact had been living with the father of the accused No. 7 Mwaerennang Moote. He was following a subsistence lifestyle.

He played a very important role in the attack upon the victim. The grievous harm suffered by the victim consisted of 4 serious head injuries and serious injuries to his legs, both legs being broken in the attack upon him. The evidence points to Baraam having assaulted the victim with a fighting stick on the victim's head and on the victim's legs. The victim eventually died as a result of being attacked by many people. I must say that the evidence does not rule out the possibility that other people and not Baraam may have inflicted the injuries that eventually caused the death of the deceased. But I am satisfied that Baraam did cause serious injuries to the deceased.

In his favour he comes before the Court as a person of previous good character. There is no doubt though that the offence has some aggravating factors. Baraam was one of a group of people who chased and attacked the victim and really set upon him quite savagely. Baraam inflicted injuries to the victim by using a fighting stick of the sort tendered in evidence as Exhibit H. That really is a formidable weapon and one look at it would convince anyone that it is capable of causing a serious injury and of course the fact that the weapon was used is another aggravating factor.

I have taken everything into account that your counsel has put to the court in your favour and in my view the appropriate sentence for what you have done is a term of imprisonment for 5 years. I note that you have been in custody since the 9th of November 1995 and I order that the term of 5 years is to commence from that date.

The other four accused have been convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. All are young men from the village of Buariki. Itimatang is 24 years old, is married and has a young child aged one year. He too was living a subsistence lifestyle prior to this case. Ekeniman is only 17 years old. Prior to this he was attending the Bahai School in Naa and he was approaching the end of his first year of secondary school. Katanga is only 18 years old. He was a student in the same school. Neither Ekeniman nor Katanga are married. Takabwebwere is aged 23, married and has 2 children, one aged 7 months and the other 3 years old.

In their favour Ekeniman and Katanga have shown some remorse by pleading guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I accept that Itimatang and Takabwebwere would have pleaded guilty to that charge had they been given the opportunity. They all come before the court as persons of good character. As I have already mentioned, these people were part of a group that attacked the victim and inflicted injuries from which the victim later died. However, there is no evidence at all that any one of these 4 accused had anything to do with any fatal injuries.

There was no evidence against Itimatang that he ever struck the victim in the areas where grievous harm was caused but he did strike the victim on the back with the fighting stick with sufficient force to knock the victim down. He also hit the victim on the left arm with the fighting stick.

Takabwebwere admitted striking the victim twice on the left leg with a fighting stick. There was evidence from one of the prosecution witnesses that the one blow that he saw Takabwebwere deliver to the victim was in fact quite a soft blow and was incapable of breaking a bone. Nevertheless it was the actions of these 2 accused, Itimatang and Takabwebwere in catching and knocking the victim to the ground that enabled the rest of the group to catch up to the victim and deliver a savage attack upon him.

Ekeniman admitted hitting the victim on both legs twice with a stick. He described the stick as over one foot in length and about as big as his hand. I assume his reference to a hand describes the width of the stick.

Katanga admitted hitting the victim twice with a stick on the right leg. He described the stick he used as more than two feet long and about 2 inches in diameter. I think these two accused put in their attack on the victim after the victim had been already attacked by other members of the group. I accept that they both attacked the victim at the behest of the crowd and that they did so so as not to anger the crowd. I do not consider that these two accused played quite as grave a part in the attack as did Itimatang and Takabwebwere.

All four accused have been in custody since their date of arrest. I think the appropriate sentence in the case of Itimatang and Takabwebwere is a term of imprisonment for 2 years and that term will commence from the date you were both taken into custody which is the 10th of November 1995.

Ekeniman and Katanga, in your case you will both be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months and that term will commence from the dates you were taken into custody, in the case of Ekeniman that is the 18th of November 1995 and in the case of Katanga that is the 10th of November 1995.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE
(13/06/96)