Republic v Tiare [1997] KIHC 74; CRC 10 of 1997 (13 June 1997)

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

HCCrC 10/97

THE REPUBLIC

v.

TIAON TIARE

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

Date of Hearing: 13 June 1997

SENTENCE

The accused has pleaded guilty to arson contrary to section 312 (a) of the Penal Code Cap. 67.

The offence occurred on the evening of Christmas, the 25^th December 1993. The accused had been drinking with the complainant Taoni Uamori who, I am told, is his cousin. Both of them were very drunk. A dispute arose and they fought, exchanging punches. The accused broke away from the fight and went to the complainant's house taking with him a lighted lamp. He then proceeded to set fire to two dwelling houses owned by the complainant. The complainant came to the scene of the fire but, despite the fact that he had the help of several neighbours, was unable to control the blaze. The two houses were completely destroyed and so were the belongings therein. Those belongings were of quite a substantial value. There were a motorbike, 2 bicycles, a hand drill, a sewing machine, a weighing machine and some bags of cement. The loss occasioned by the fire is estimated at around $10,000.

I am told that the accused is 29 years old. He is married and has one young child aged 1 year. Although he is unemployed and lives a subsistence lifestyle, his wife works as a school teacher on Abemama which is the accused's home island. The accused comes to this court as a person of previous good character, this being his first conviction for a criminal offence. It is put to me by his counsel that the offence itself is entirely out of character and was induced by alcohol. I am also told that the accused has apologised to the complainant and that apology has been accepted. The accused has attempted to make as much reparation as possible. He has re-built a large local house for the complainant and also a smaller house but of course the valuable material possessions lost in the fire cannot be replaced by the accused given the fact that he is not employed and therefore not earning money. The accused also fully cooperated with the police, and pleaded guilty at his earliest opportunity.

I take all of those things into account said in favour of the accused and, particularly, I take into account that he has, so far as he was able, tried to make some reparation for the damage he has done. In my view that weighs heavily in his favour.

Having said that, the offence he has committed must be regarded as serious. In fact the legislature regards offences of this nature as so serious that they carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The present offence has certain aggravating features. The accused set fire not just to one building, but to two buildings. It is quite apparent from the facts that his motive in doing so was one of revenge. The damages he caused was extensive, estimated at $10,000. In view of the economic conditions in Kiribati, that is a vast amount of money indeed. I must also take into account that the offence of arson is a very prevalent offence in Kiribati.

In all the circumstances, I think that an appropriate sentence is one of 18 months' imprisonment and the accused is therefore convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice

(13/06/97)