Republic v Tonganibeia [1999] KIHC 39; HCCrC 10.99 (12 November 1999)

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

HCCrC 10/99

THE REPUBLIC

versus

TABUARIKI TONGANIBEIA

Mr D James for the Republic
Mr J Fleer for the Accused

Date of Hearing: 12 November 1999

SENTENCE

The accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of arson contrary to section 312 of the Penal Code Cap. 67. The facts relating to the offence are set out in the summary annexed to the indictment. It can be seen that the accused, while in a drunken state, committed not one act of arson but two. He first lit a fire in a house with some kerosene. As it turned out, only the mattress was destroyed and not the house itself, but this was no thanks to the accused. He then went on to set fire to a kiakia which apparently was completely destroyed. The total estimated cost of the damage is $350. It is not alleged that any person was put in danger as a result of the fires.

I am told that the accused is aged 39 and has 7 children. He has a bad criminal history. The criminal record handed up to the Court shows 6 convictions, one of which resulted in a prison term. I am told that record is not complete and that the accused has since then been convicted of 2 other offences in respect of which he served another term in prison. I am also told that since the accused was released from prison on the last occasion, which was in August of this year, he has refrained from drinking.

I think it is a little early to say with any confidence that the accused has rehabilitated himself. This would certainly be a desirable result because it appears that if he continues drinking he will no doubt end up in further trouble. I am given to understand that all of his previous convictions were alcohol-related.

The offence must be regarded as serious. In fact, the offence of arson is so prevalent in Kiribati that the High Court has said on many occasions that the appropriate sentence ought to be a term of imprisonment, unless there are exceptional circumstances. No exceptional circumstances exist here. What the accused did was a wanton, senseless destruction of another person's property, a kiakia and a mattress, his only explanation being that he was affected by alcohol.

In all the circumstances, a term of imprisonment is inevitable. However, in deciding what is an appropriate term I must take into account 2 matters in the accused's favour. Firstly, he has pleaded guilty, and next, he has offered an apology to the complainant and that apology has been accepted.

Taking all those matters into account, the accused is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 4 months.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE
(12/11/99)