Republic v Tion - judgment [2001] KIHC 62; Criminal Case 02 of 2001 (25 September 2001)

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

High Court Criminal Case 2 of 2001

THE REPUBLIC

vs

ANGANG TION

For the Republic: Tion Nabau, State Advocate
For the Accused: Emma Hibling, People's Lawyer

Date of Hearing: 24 & 25 September 2001
Date of Judgment: 25 September 2001

JUDGMENT

The accused stands charged with the murder of her husband, Terabwebwe Tokiaba. To this charge she has pleaded not guilty.

Sometime between 5:00 and 6:00 on the afternoon of 1 January 2001, at their house in Temakin, Betio, the accused and her husband had a verbal argument that led to a violent altercation. One of their neighbours Betiana saw the accused strike Terabwebwe on the head with a fist-sized rock. In response Terabwebwe, who was drunk, dragged the accused to the ground by her hair, and hit her twice on the head with a somewhat larger rock.

The accused managed to get to her feet and she was seen to run away, chased by her husband. Both the accused and Terabwebwe had sustained head injuries from their assaults upon each other.

Some unspecified period later, the accused and her husband were seen together on their kiakia by another neighbour, Uaabong. By this time Terabwebwe had sustained an injury that would ultimately prove fatal: a single stab wound to his right chest, which penetrated the left chest cavity, severing the three intercostals vessels – two veins and an artery – causing a huge amount of blood loss, leading to haemorrhagic shock and death.

Uaabong could see that the accused and her husband were quite close together on the kiakia. Both were crying. Terabwebwe told the accused that she was a good woman, but he was not a good man. He apologized to her. The accused also apologized to her husband, and said that she had not intended to do "that sort of thing". Terabwebwe was then taken to the hospital, where he died two days later.

Save for the evidence of Doctor Gong Huai-qiang, which only went to establishing the cause of death, that is the case for the prosecution.

Ms Hibling submits that the accused has no case to answer. My duty, in considering such a submission, is to place the prosecution case at its highest and consider whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a properly directed tribunal of fact could convict the accused.

My summary of the facts puts the prosecution case at it highest. The defence does not dispute the facts in any material way. There is no direct evidence as to how Terabwebwe came to be stabbed, and certainly nothing to suggest that it was the accused who stabbed him. Mr Nabau, for the prosecution, has urged upon me the view that, in apologizing to her husband on the kiakia, by necessary inference the accused could only have been apologizing for stabbing him. I do not accept this contention. We have no idea why the accused said what she said. She may have been apologizing for causing the stab wound, but equally she may have been apologizing for hitting him on the head with a rock, or for some other, unspecified, sin. The accused did not in any way mention the wound on her husband's chest. As I pointed out to Mr Nabau during submissions, what he was calling inference was simply mere speculation. There is no room in a court of law for conjecture and I am not entitled to guess as to why the accused felt it necessary to apologise to her husband as he lay dying on their kiakia.

Notwithstanding this, Mr Nabau argues that the accused must have a case to answer because, left as it is, there are far too many unanswered questions. I reminded him that the onus was on him to resolve any lingering doubts or unanswered questions. It is not open to me to find that the accused has a case to answer simply because I am curious to learn what she has to say about the matter.

There is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime with which she has been charged. It is tragic that a man has died in such circumstances, and it is understandable that some may think they know what happened that afternoon but, as I have said, I am not permitted to speculate and I can only rule on the evidence placed before me by the prosecution. Mr Nabau has done his best with the material available to him but there is nothing that a properly directed tribunal of fact could use to convict the accused.

The accused has no case to answer. Accordingly, she is acquitted and discharged.

DAVID LAMBOURNE
COMMISSIONER