Republic v Nakimai - sentence [1996] KIHC 8; HCCrC 03.96 (26 April 1996)

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

HCCrC 3/96

THE REPUBLIC

versus

TEMOAI NAKIMAI

Ms P Atanraoi for the Republic
Mr D Lambourne for the Accused

SENTENCE

The accused has been convicted of manslaughter of his de facto wife by reason provocation, on an indictment for murder. The facts have been fully set out in my judgment. Briefly, the accused, upon finding his wife in flagrante delicto, grabbed a sharp piece of roofing material which was near at hand and stabbed her to death. The case was one in which the accused had no time to consider the provocation. Although he must have suspected the deceased's infidelity because of the way she had been behaving over the previous weeks, to suddenly discover her naked on the ground with a man on top of her would have presented provocation of a very high degree.

I am told that the accused is aged 57 and is originally from Makin Island. His relationship with the deceased dated from 1992. There were no children of that relationship but the accused has four adult children from a previous marriage. He worked in Nauru for the Phosphate Company for more than 20 years, retiring in 1979. Since returning to Kiribati he has worked as a driver for MAT Shipping Company for four years. At one time he was a unimane in the church maneaba at Eita. I am told also that he has apologised to the family of the deceased and that the apology has been accepted.

I have to bear in mind that a life has been deliberately taken and that I have a duty to ensure that the accused expiates his offence. On the other hand, there are a number of mitigating circumstances which ought to be taken into account.

The accused has at all times fully cooperated with the police and has never denied committing the offence of which he is now convicted. He gave a full confession only hours after the incident. That confession was the most vital piece of evidence in the prosecution case. He has thus demonstrated his remorse for what he has done. He is a person of previous god character with a steady employment record. There is no reason of course for believing that anything like this will happen again.

Counsel for the accused has cited as a comparable sentence the case of The Republic v. Beretia Bakatu (HCCrC 52/94), where the accused received a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment. In cases of manslaughter the facts vary enormously from case to case. I must say though that the facts of that case appear to be of an even more serious nature than the facts of the present case. I am sure that the learned Acting Chief Justice had his reasons for handing down what I consider to be a quite lenient sentence but, unfortunately, his decision does not set out those reasons in any detail.

In the present case, having taken into account everything said in the accused's favour, I consider that the appropriate sentence is 5 years' imprisonment, but such sentence ought to take into account the time already served.

The accused is therefore sentenced to be imprisoned for five (5) years to commence from 14th October 1995.

THE HON R LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE
(26/04/96)