Tamaroa v Republic [1998] KIHC 55; HCCrA 28.98 (16 November 1998)

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

HCCrA 28/98

BETWEEN:

BARANIKO TAMAROA
TIOTE AUKITINO
Appellants

AND:

THE REPUBLIC
Respondent

Ms J Fleer for the Appellants
Ms P Tebao for the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 16 November 1998

JUDGMENT

Both of the appellants pleaded not guilty in the magistrates' court to two charges, firstly, criminal trespass contrary to section 182(1)(a) of the Penal Code Cap. 67 and secondly, damaging property contrary to section 319(1) of the Penal Code. They were both found guilty and convicted. On the first count they were sentenced to imprisonment for 2 months and on the second count to imprisonment for 6 months, both sentences to run consecutively.

The appellants originally brought an appeal on two grounds but the first of those grounds has been abandoned and all that remains for this court to decide now is whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The brief facts were that both the appellants, who were drunk, entered a house that was in charge of a 15 year old girl. They knocked a video to the ground, damaging it, and the girl ran away to find her parents.

The maximum penalty for the first count is 1 year's imprisonment and for the second count 2 years' imprisonment. The damage caused to the video was quite substantial, being estimated at around $1,000. The appellants, in pleading not guilty, disentitled themselves to the discount which pleas of guilty would have attracted.

Looking at the facts of the case, it has not been established in my view that the magistrates' sentence was manifestly excessive. I do agree, however, that in the circumstances the sentences should have been ordered to be served concurrently and not consecutively.

The appeal will, therefore, be partly successful. The appeal against the sentence of 2 months' imprisonment on the first count is dismissed. The appeal against sentence of 6 months' imprisonment on the second count is also dismissed but the sentence of the magistrates' court is altered to the effect that both sentences are to be served concurrently. In other words, the total term of imprisonment to be served will be 6 months and not 8 months.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE
(16/11/98)