Meeti v Republic [1996] KIHC 30; HCCrA 07.96 (3 July 1996)

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

HCCrA 7/96

BETWEEN:

MATAUA MEETI
Appellant

AND:

THE REPUBLIC
Respondent

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

JUDGMENT

The appellant pleaded not guilty in the magistrates' court to a charge of unlawful wounding contrary to section 223 of the Penal Code. He was found guilty and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment. He now appeals that sentence.

The facts were that he went to the house of the complainant armed with a knife and threatened to kill him. He struck at the complainant with the knife and the complainant tried to grab the knife cutting his thumb in the process. They then struggled, rolled on the floor and it was during this struggle that the complainant suffered some scratches to his back. The complainant managed to break free and ran away and he was followed by the appellant still armed with a knife. The appellant was finally restrained by some villagers.

In the complainant's evidence in the lower court he said that he would have been more seriously wounded had he not defended himself. He also said that if he had not managed to get hold of the knife he would have been struck in the neck. It can be seen from these facts that this is a serious incident of this type of offence. The appellant made a threat to kill and he used a weapon, that is a knife, to carry out an attack on the victim and had to be restrained from pressing that attack.

About the only thing that can be said in his favour is that he is a first offender. Thankfully the injuries to the complainant were not serious but the appellant cannot receive any credit for this because the injuries may well have been serious had not the complainant defended himself.

Having said that, it does appear to me as though the sentence was excessive. I think the magistrates were quite correct in imposing a severe sentence in this case because offences involving knives and other weapons occur far too often in our society. However, while I think that a substantial sentence is called for I do not think the magistrates' court gave the appellant sufficient credit for the fact that he was a person of previous good character and had led a blameless life for 44 years.

That being the case the appeal will be allowed. The sentence of the magistrates' court is set aside and in lieu thereof the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE
(03/07/96)