Republic v Toom [1998] KIHC 5; HCCrC 62.97 (16 January 1998)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

Criminal Case No. 62 of 1997

THE REPUBLIC

vs

KOMATANG TOOM

For the Republic: Ms Pole Tebao
For the Accused: Mr Banuera Berina

Date of Hearing: 16 January 1998

SENTENCE

The accused was originally indicted on two counts. The first count is the present charge and the second count was one of simple larceny. As regard to the second count the Attorney General has entered a nolle prosequi and the accused is discharged in relation to that second count. Returning to the first count, the accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining money by false pretences contrary to section 301(a) of the Penal Code Cap. 67.

The brief facts were that the accused had hidden a pass book belonging to one Tomati Ingaba when the accused was working with the Bank of Kiribati. On the 5th July 1996 he arranged with one Rioteti Tekaiwa to present that pass book at Betio Hardware, which was an agency of the Bank of Kiribati. Prior to the pass book being presented the accused had shown Rioteti how to sign the signature of the account holder by placing a piece of paper over the ultra light space of the pass book. However, when Rioteti presented the pass book at Betio Hardware the signature was tested under the ultra light and found to be defective. The accused then persuaded Rioteti to go to the Gateway bar, which was another agency of the bank. The accused was more successful there. He signed the name of the account holder on a cheque for an amount of $385. Rioteti was given $350 and the remainder was retained by the owner of the bar as commission. Rioteti then took the money to the accused who gave him $60 for his part in obtaining the money. The withdrawal slip was later dishonoured by the Bank of Kiribati.

There is no doubt that the facts are serious. The accused was able to steal the pass book by reason of his position of trust as an employee of the Bank of Kiribati. He also used the knowledge learned in that position to teach another person how to forge a customer's signature by placing a piece of paper over the ultra light space of the pass book. Obviously, what the accused did was a serious breach of the trust placed in him.

In my view, where a breach of trust is involved a term of imprisonment is inevitable except in very exceptional circumstances or where the amount of money stolen is small. In this case there were no exceptional circumstances. The offence does not appear to have been committed under any pressing financial necessity. In fact, the money stolen was spent on alcohol. It also cannot be said that the amount of money stolen was a small amount. It certainly was not a fortune, but it was a substantial amount by local standards.

I am told that the accused is a young man aged 23. In his favour he is a person of previous good character, he has pleaded guilty and has fully cooperated with the police. He has also expressed remorse for what he has done. It is submitted for him that he has already suffered some repercussions from this offence. His de facto wife has left him because of the offence and his prospect of employment in the future are now minimal.

I take all of those circumstances into account but, as I have already indicated, the only appropriate penalty for this offence is a term of imprisonment.

The accused is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 12 months. That term is to commence from the 19th December 1997 which was the date on which the accused was arraigned and entered a plea of guilty.

Dated the 16th day of January 1998

THE HON R B LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE