Republic v Ieremia [2012] KIHC 8; Criminal Case 36 of 2011 (20 April 2012)

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

HIGH COURT CRIM CASE 36 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

THE REPUBLIC
PROSECUTOR

AND:

TENTAU IEREMIA
ACCUSED

FOR PROSECUTOR: TEWIA TAWITA
FOR ACCUSED: BANUERA BERINA
Date of Hearing: 7 & 21 March 2012

SENTENCE

The accused, Tentau Ieremia, was charged with Indecent Assault contrary to section 133(1) of the Penal Code, Cap 67. The charge read as follows; that Tentau Ieremia on the 22 August 2010 on Aiaki village, Onotoa island in the Republic of Kiribati unlawfully and indecently assaulted Teabo Taberu, a girl under the age of 15 years.

On the 7th of March, the accused Tentau Ieremia pleaded GUILTY to this charge against him.

On the 21st March both Counsels made their submissions to Court. One of the pressing issues raised to this Court is the issue of consent. The accused agreed to all the facts submitted by the prosecution except for the issue of consent. They submitted that the victim consented to the actions done to her. After considering submissions from both Counsels and the agreed fact, I am inclined to accept what Counsel for the accused had submitted, that the victim consented.
Counsel for the accused submitted several other mitigating factors for the accused which are laid down below;

- that the accused pleaded guilty simply because the victim was under 15 years at the time of the offence, and that had it not been for this age factor no offence would have been committed since the accused consented to the indecency act,

- that the accused apologized to the victim's family immediately after knowing that they were not happy with what happened to the victim, and

- that the accused is a first offender.

I take these factors into account in the accused favour. They mean a lesser sentence than otherwise. Counsel also requested this Court to consider awarding a discharge without conviction to the accused since the matter is only trivial or in the alternative a suspended sentence should the court thinks that it is more than a minor case.

Counsel for the Republic argued otherwise, that the accused should be given a custodial sentence of between 2 to 9 months imprisonment, in accordance with the case authorities she raised. The fact that the accused is a police officer aggravates the charge against him. A police officer is expected to enforce our laws and maintain peace and order in the country.

After considering both submissions and case authorities raised, it is my view that a discharge without conviction is not appropriate in this case. I note the fact that the accused may lose his job when convicted of this offence, I sympathise with him on this but I found the matter, the sucking of the victim's breast, the victim being under 15 years old and the accused being a police officer, more than a trivial one. The accused should therefore receive 6 months imprisonment suspended for 12 months.

You are not to commit any offence within this 12 months period. If you commit any offence within this 12 months period you will be brought back to Court to be ordered to serve this sentence in addition to any other punishment for the subsequence offence committed.

Dated 20th April 2012.

TETIRO M SEMILOTA
COMMISSIONER OF THE HIGH COURT