Republic v Taiau - judgment on Voir Dire 1 [2004] KIHC 2; Criminal Case 68 of 2003 (4 March 2004)

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

Criminal Case No. 68 of 2003

THE REPUBLIC

vs

MARUIA TAIAU, TEEA MAREWE,
TENNANG RURUNGA & TEREREI TABURIMAI

For the Republic: Ms Pole Tebao
For the 1st Accused: Ms Jacqueline Huston
For the 2nd Accused: Mr Aomoro Amten
For the 3rd Accused: Ms Taoing Taoaba
For the 4th Accused: Ms Taoing Taoaba

Date of Hearing: 4 March 2004

JUDGMENT ON VOIR DIRE (1)
(Ex Tempore)

Mr Amten has objected to the admission of the caution statement of his client Teea. The Director of Public Prosecutions has most helpfully conceded that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to its admissibility remains on the prosecution. Ms Tebao referred to Archbold (41^st ed) para 15-23.

Mr Amten made two points in objection. First that waiting for the six or seven days before taking the caution statement was too long to hold his client in custody and for that reason alone the caution statement should not be admitted.

I must bear in mind the impression I have formed of the atmosphere on Teraina following the death of Kaewaniti. People, especially the relatives of the deceased, were angry and they may have taken the law into their own hands, had the accused not been protected by being in custody. The police had to deal with that situation, continue their enquiries concerning the death and carry out other duties. I do not consider the time too long. Mr Amten's first point fails.

The second point arises out of the evidence given on the voir dire by his client: that although he was cautioned properly, before his caution statement was taken, Constable Teioo told him he would be released – and therefore at the mercy of the relatives and others – unless he made the statement. This was a threat and I should exclude the statement. To the contrary, both Constables Teioo and Tokia Arioka, the village warden who was present during and for some minutes before the caution was given, say that before the statement was taken, nothing was said about relatives or about releasing the accused. I accept what each of them said. Tokia, although I believe an honest witness, did not have as definite a recollection as Teioo: he is a village warden, not a fully trained police officer. But Tokia does confirm Teioo's evidence which I do not hesitate to accept beyond reasonable doubt, that it was after taking the statement that he asked Teea as a joke whether he wanted to be released. Teea preferred to remain in custody. My firm impression of Teioo was of a decent, honest man telling the truth. I felt I could rely on him. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offer to release was made after, not before, the caution statement was taken and therefore does not affect its admissibility. Mr Amten's second point also fails.

In the exercise of my discretion I receive the caution statement.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice