Republic v Maritino [1996] KIHC 99; HCCrC 48.94 (16 September 1996)

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

HCCrC 48/94

THE REPUBLIC

versus

TUITE MARITINO
RORETI TETAO

Ms P Atanraoi for the Republic
Mr T Teiwaki for the 2nd Accused

JUDGMENT

The Prosecution have applied for an adjournment of this case. I must say the reason seems to me to be a very feeble one. I am told that the Clerk of the Island Council in Ocean Island was mobbed by a group of Ocean Islanders and this necessitated his being put on the ship that was going to bring a key witness to South Tarawa for this trial. For some reason which I cannot understand, the key witness apparently was asked to get off the ship and is still in Ocean Island. It seems that because the key witness had to get off the ship, the other witnesses involved in this case have not been brought to court either.

This case was fixed for hearing some three months ago on the 14th of June 1996. At that stage the Prosecution indicated that that was a suitable date for hearing. The accused has travelled all the way from TabNorth at his own expense to stand his trial today. The Prosecution have given no notice to the accused or to the court of its intention to apply for an adjournment. Moreover, it is unable to give any date or any prospective date of when the next boat will arrive from Ocean Island. There are no planes flying to Ocean Island and it appears that there is also no shipping schedule. The trips are arranged only on the basis that there will be enough people requiring to go to Ocean Island. So were the court to grant this application for an adjournment it would need to be for an indeterminate period. That of course would be a most unjust and unsatisfactory situation so far as the accused is concerned. These charges have been hanging over the head of the accused for some five years now. In my view, to grant an adjournment in the circumstances outlined by the Prosecution would result in an injustice to the accused. I therefore refuse the Prosecution's application for an adjournment.

The Court having refused the Prosecution's application to adjourn this case, the State Advocate has now entered a nolle prosequi by stating that the Republic does not intend to continue with the proceedings. It seems to me that in the circumstances this is a most realistic and reasonable approach for the Prosecution to take. Their key witness after all was a co-accused. There is no guarantee that the Prosecution will ever be able to bring him to South Tarawa for this trial even if there was a fixed shipping schedule.

Accused, you are now discharged and you are free to leave the court.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE
(16/09/96)