Republic v Tebaau [1996] KIHC 24; HCCrC 09.96 (28 June 1996)

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

HCCrC 9/96

THE REPUBLIC

vs

RICHARD TEBAAU

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

SENTENCE

The accused comes before this court for sentence after pleading guilty to two charges, one of indecent assault on a female contrary to section 133(1) of the Penal Code Cap. 67 and the other of unlawful wounding contrary to section 223 of the Penal Code Cap. 67.

The facts are that one night in late December 1995 he called the complainant to sleep with him and his wife. The complainant is in fact his 13 year old daughter and the wife concerned is the accused's second wife who is not the complainant's mother but the complainant's stepmother. It was during this incident that the accused touched his daughter's breasts, sucked them, attempted to kiss her and touched her vagina. That is the only incident alleged by the prosecution as constituting indecent assault.

The other offence is really made up of two incidents, one when the accused repeatedly stuck a dart point into his daughter's right shoulder. That was after he had questioned her as to who the person was that she had been seen talking to on a number of occasions before he had returned from Japan. The other incident, perhaps the more serious, is when the accused in a drunken state threw a knife at her four times. On the fourth attempt the knife struck the girl on her right foot and caused it to bleed heavily.

As regards the charge of indecent assault the physical assault itself is in my view not towards the upper end of the scale for offences of this nature. There was certainly touching and sucking of the daughter's breasts and also touching of her vagina, but there is no allegation of any digital penetration. By saying that I do not mean to appear to be regarding the offence in a lighthearted way. It is a serious offence, there is no doubt about that, and although no physical injury is alleged, there is no telling what emotional damage may have been done to this young girl as a result of what her father has done to her.

His excuse was that he was not after sexual gratification. He was merely teaching her about sex. Of course that is equivalent to teaching a person about guns by shooting him. If indeed that really had been the accused's motive, he now concedes that he was quite wrong to do what he did. No matter what motive he might attribute to his actions, the fact is that what he did was plainly indecent and quite serious, particularly when one takes into account the circumstances of the victim.

She is a young 13 year old girl, who could be described as a vulnerable victim. She is the accused's daughter and thus a person even more vulnerable because of the accused's relationship to her and his position of authority and trust. In doing what he did he badly abused that position.

The other offence of unlawful wounding must have caused the victim a great deal of terror by having a knife repeatedly thrown at her by a drunk. To make it worse, on the fourth attempt the poor girl was hit on the foot and an injury sufficient to cause heavy bleeding resulted.

All I am told is the accused is aged 40, is married for a second time and from that marriage has two young girls aged 7 and 3. As I mentioned earlier, the complainant is a daughter of his by an earlier marriage. The accused is from South Tarawa. He has successfully completed an apprenticeship in mechanical engineering, since which time he has been employed in that trade. He had been separated from his daughter for a period of some 10 years and it was only when he returned to Kiribati from Japan in December 1995 that they had seen each other again.

In the accused's favour he has pleaded guilty. He has thus spared the young daughter the trauma and anguish of having to give evidence in a trial. I am satisfied that the accused has demonstrated genuine remorse at what he has done. He is a man of previous good character and I fully appreciate that any term of imprisonment will result in hardship to his wife and young family. Nevertheless the court has a duty to safeguard young girls and particularly young girls who are in vulnerable positions such as the complainant in this case who was only 13 years old and was the accused's own daughter.

Taking everything into account I find that the appropriate sentence for the first count, indecent assault on a female, is that the accused be imprisoned for a term of 12 months. As regards the offence of unlawful wounding the accused is to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months and just so that there is no doubt, those sentences will be cumulative so that the accused will serve a total of 18 months' imprisonment.

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