Republic v Teururu [2009] KIHC 24; Criminal Case 70 of 2008 (8 June 2009)

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

High Court Criminal Case 70 of 2008

THE REPUBLIC

V

TIRINTEITI TEURURU
TAWAKE MORETI

For the Republic: Ms Pauline Beiatau
For the 1st Accused: Sr Bernadette Eberi
For the 2nd Accused: Ms Maere Kirata

Dates of Hearing: 8 June 2009

DECISION ON APPLICATION TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS

Tirinteiti Teururu and Tawake Moreti were jointly charged with causing money to be paid on forged documents, false pretences, forgery and uttering.

As soon as the case was called on for trial Ms Beiatau, for the Attorney General, entered a nolle prosequi in relation to Nei Tawake.

Before Tirinteiti was asked to plead Sr Bernadette applied for a stay of proceedings.

The offences were alleged to have occurred between July and November 2005 but the indictments were not filed until 1 December 2008. Sr Bernadette submitted the delay was too long: in accordance with the practice of the Court, the delay, being over 12 months, justified a stay.

Ms Beiatau called Nei Mareta Teken, Loans Provision Manager of the Bank. From Nei Mareta’s evidence it was clear that the delay between the alleged commission of the offences and their discovery was due to the accused, Tirinteiti. He was able to conceal what had been done. When the lady whose name and signature appeared on loan documents as guarantor complained, what had been done came to light.

The matter was reported to the police on 31 December 2007. The police interviewed the applicant in March 2008. Thereafter, on a date not precisely known, the matter was referred to the Attorney General.

The applicant should not be able to take advantage of his own wrongdoing in concealing what he was alleged to have done. The delay of two years between commission of the alleged defences and discovery should not be taken into account to support a stay of proceedings.

That leaves the 11 months between the police coming into the case and the filing of the indictment. The delay by the police in interviewing the accused is to be regretted and should have been less but it was not unusually long. Likewise the delay by the Attorney General was far longer than it should have been but again not so long as, of itself, to justify a stay.

It is a "line ball". Upon reflection and in the exercise of discretion, I refused the application.

Dated the 8th day of June 2009

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice