Republic v Moua [1999] KIHC 1; HCCrC 06.98 (15 January 1999)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

(BEFORE THE HON R LUSSICK)

HCCrC 6/98

THE REPUBLIC

versus

KATANGATEMAN MOUA

Mr T Tabane for the Republic
Mr D Lambourne for the Accused

Date of Hearing: 15 January 1999

SENTENCE

The accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of embezzlement contrary to section 266(b)(ii) of the Penal Code Cap. 67 in that between 14 February 1997 and 20 June 1997 at Bairiki, Tarawa, being employed in the public service as an Examiner of Accounts with the Kiribati National Audit Office, he embezzled or fraudulently applied for his own use the amount of $1,322.18 received by him by virtue of his employment. The facts are set out in the summary of facts annexed to this judgment.

I am told that the accused is aged 30 and comes originally from the island of Nonouti. He is married and has 4 children aged between the years of 1 and 12. His wife does not work and up until his suspension in respect of the present offence, the accused was the sole source of income for his family.

The facts show that a serious aggravating feature of the offence was that it was committed by the accused in breach of the trust placed in him by his employer. Apart from stealing money the offence also involved the accused forging the signature of the Deputy Auditor General. The court must therefore take a very serious view of the offence. The High Court has said on previous occasions that in cases involving a breach of trust a term of imprisonment is inevitable except in very exceptional cases or where the amount of money stolen is small. In this case there are no exceptional circumstances. It was a straight forward breach of trust. The accused did not commit the offence out of any pressing necessity. The amount of money stolen was quite substantial. However, in the accused's favour I take into account that he has pleaded guilty, that he is a first offender and that he has cooperated with the police.

In all the circumstances, I think an appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment for a period of 12 months and the accused is convicted and sentenced accordingly.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(15/01/99)