Kautoa v Republic [1996] KIHC 22; HCCrA 11.96 (28 June 1996)

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

HCCrA 11/96

KAUTOA KAUTOA

vs

THE REPUBLIC

Mr D Lambourne for the Appellant
Ms T Beero for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant and another accused pleaded guilty before the magistrates' court of the crime of theft contrary to section 251 and punishable under section 254 of the Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to 5 months' imprisonment whereas the other accused was sentenced only to pay a fine of $15. Once again this court is left to speculate on why two co-accused treated so differently. The magistrates would have had their reasons but omitted to make any note whatsoever of those reasons.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the cause of (end of tape) The other accused had 2 previous convictions which were of a very minor nature. In fact one was a traffic offence. He was facing in relation to the present case a maximum period of imprisonment of 5 years. The appellant on the other hand has a very bad criminal record and because he has been previously convicted of a felony he was not facing a maximum of 5 years, he was facing a maximum sentence of 10 years.

The magistrates in my view were very lenient in imposing a sentence of only 5 months' imprisonment. He has many offences on his record and some of them are for the more serious forms of larceny. I confess that when I first read this record I was inclined to increase the sentence because I could see that 5 months be inadequate. However after listening to the arguments from the People's Lawyer I am persuaded not to do this but in my view the appellant has not established any reason at all to demonstrate why the magistrates may have been in error.

This appeal is therefore dismissed and the sentence is confirmed. This sentence will be cumulatively served with the other sentence.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE
(28/06/96)