Republic v Teieka [2013] KIHC 23; Criminal Case 11-11 (24 June 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI 2013

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11 OF 2011

BETWEEN

THE REPUBLIC
PROSECUTOR

AND

KATAUNATI TEIEKA
ACCUSED

Before: Hon Chief Justice Sir John Muria

24 June 2013

Ms Pauline Beiatau for Prosecution
Ms Kiata Kabure for Accused

SENTENCE

Muria CJ: At the end of the prosecution case, you changed your mind and pleaded guilty to one count of Indecent Assault. However it was not until after the second victim testified in Court that you decided to change your plea.

Originally, you pleaded Not Guilty to four counts of Indecent Assault upon two victims who were your daughters. The trial was run. The first victim (the elder of the two) gave evidence, but she was clearly very reluctant to tell the Court what you did to her, despite all the efforts by Ms Beiatau of Counsel for the prosecution to get her to tell her story to the Court. The Court has no choice but to find that you have no case to answer in respect of the charges brought against you in respect of her (first victim) and acquitted you on those charges.

The second victim (your younger daughter) despite the stress she had to put through, did give her story. In the Court's view, she was brave to do so, despite her age. It was only after she gave her evidence that you changed your mind and decided to plead Guilty to the one remaining count of Indecent Assault.

In mitigation, Ms Kabure of Counsel for the defence, submitted that the Court should take into account in your favour your change of plea. Unfortunately you cannot get any credit for your change of plea. You waited until the victim completed her evidence before you changed your plea. It was quite obvious that you were banking on and taking your chances that the second victim would follow the reluctant steps taken by the first victim. You did not succeed and so realized that you had no choice but to change your plea.

The Court notes that as a result of what you did, the family has not been together, although your wife continues to live with you. The children are still affected by what happened.

I accept that there is a somewhat delay in bringing this matter to Court. This is clear from what the first victim stated in Court. It may well be that, had the prosecution proceeded with the matter much earlier, the result might have been different.

Against that situation, this is a clear case of breach of trust by you. You are supposed to be caring for the victim, not tampering with her. You have abused your position.

I note the cases cited by Counsel. Each case is decided on its own facts.

Republic v Kaitama's case is a case where the accused pleaded guilty right from the start, not after the prosecution case. It is not applicable.

The prosecution asks for residential order. I feel that this is not an appropriate case for residential order. It is certainly in my view a case for custodial sentence.

In the circumstances of this case, the appropriate sentence is one of six (6) months' imprisonment sentence. The circumstances of the case also do not justify the sentence to be suspended. It must be served.

The family circumstances urged upon the Court by Ms Kabure to be considered for suspended sentence are not sufficient to persuade the Court to suspend the sentence in the circumstances of this case.

ORDER: Sentenced to six months' imprisonment to be served with effect from today 24 June 2013.

Dated the 24th day of June 2013

SIR JOHN MURIA
Chief Justice