Republic v Peter [1997] KIHC 79; CRC 07 of 1997 (12 November 1997)

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

HCCrC 7/97

THE REPUBLIC

v.

RANIBONG PETER

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

Date of Hearing: 12 November 1997

SENTENCE

The accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of rape contrary to section 128 of the Penal Code Cap. 67 in that on the 22^nd of April 1995 at Taronga, Betio he had unlawful sexual intercourse with Timtiai Tabaketi without her consent.

The facts were that at about 3 am in the early morning, the accused went to the complainant's house and asked her to let him make love with her. She refused and shouted to the neighbours whereupon the accused went away. However, he later returned carrying a stick which had the appearance of a knife. He went to the complainant, put the stick against the complainant's stomach and ordered her to keep quiet. The accused then had sexual intercourse with the complainant. No harm or physical injury was apparently caused to the complainant but, nevertheless, she was put in fear by being led to believe that a knife had been held to her stomach and that she would probably be stabbed if she did not submit to the accused's advances.

I am told that the accused is aged 25 and comes from Onotoa. He has recently married and has a 6-month old adopted girl as well as a 4-year old girl from a previous relationship. He earns his living as a diver and supports his family from that income. I am told that at the time he committed this offence, he was heavily affected by alcohol or "fully drunk" as the accused described himself. That, of course, ought not to be regarded as a mitigating factor.

I take into account that apart from the fact that the complainant was led to believe that her life might be in danger, there was a minimum of violence attached to this offence. By saying that, I by no means imply that the fact that the complainant was put in such fear ought to be disregarded. I also take into account that the accused is a first offender and that he has pleaded guilty to this offence, thus sparing the complainant from the additional stress of having to give evidence. He has also fully cooperated with the police and I am told that he made a full admission to them on the very day of the offence. That being the case, it is difficult to understand why it took 2 years for an indictment to be filed. For that period, of course, he has had the offence hanging over his head.

There is no question that the only proper penalty for this offence is a term of imprisonment. In all the circumstances, I consider that the appropriate sentence is imprisonment for a term of 4 years and the accused is convicted and sentenced accordingly.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice

(12/11/97)