Republic v Katarake [2014] KIHC 19; Criminal Case 40.2014 (20 June 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI 2014

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 40 OF 2012

BETWEEN

THE REPUBLIC
PROSECUTOR

AND

TAAKARIA KATARAKE
ACCUSED

Before: The Hon Justice Vincent Zehurikize

20 June 2014

Ms Pauline Beiatau for Prosecutor
Mr Raweita Beniata for Accused

RULING ON SENTENCE

Zehurikize J: When this case came up for hearing on 19 June 2014 the accused pleaded guilty to all the three offences. He was consequently found guilty as charged and convicted accordingly.

Ms Beiatau appeared for the Republic while Mr Beniata was for the accused. Both Counsel made vigorous submissions in respect of their client's respective cases.

I have considered submissions by both Counsel. The thrust of Ms Beiatau's arguments is that the convict is a habitual offender as can be seen from the Police Clearance Certificate on which are recorded four (4) previous convictions. Three of the four convictions are of Theft and House breaking. The first conviction only is of Drunk and Disorderly. He is still serving sentence of three years for theft. It was Counsel's view that the convict was a risk to society.

But Mr Beniata did not agree. It was his view that these previous convictions should not be taken into account as they happened before the instant case. That his client has since changed. He observed that the authorities cited by Counsel for the Republic namely High Court Criminal Case No. 38/2001 Republic –v- Knight Karoua and Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1988 Republic –v- Matieta Timeon and Tiimi Butiaua actually favour his client's case that leniency should be exercised.

I have given serious consideration to this matter. The convict has pleaded guilty which is a very important mitigating factor in handing out of sentence because he has saved the Court's time and scarce resources. He has saved the prosecution many witnesses from the rigorous exercise of coming to and giving evidence in Court.

But on the other hand I cannot ignore the fact that the convict is a habitual criminal and in particular he has a high appetite for theft. It appears he commits this offence with impunity not caring of the consequences. His Counsel pointed out that he was lured with the present offences by his friend who told him that there had been an earlier theft from CDRC's office and nothing was done to the perpetrators of the crime.

He committed this offence in broad daylight well knowing that nothing would happen to him.

Given the convict's repeated commission of similar offences, it is clear to me that indeed he is a dangerous man and a risk to society as submitted by Counsel for the Republic.

If he had not pleaded guilty I would have sentenced him to a term of 10 years on the first count which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. But since, as I have already held, a plea of guilty is an important mitigating factor, I do sentence him to a term of five years imprisonment on the first count. I also sentence the convict to the term of one year imprisonment on the second count and a similar period on the third count. The sentences shall run concurrently.

The Right of Appeal is explained to the convict.

Dated the 20th day of June 2014

THE HON JUSTICE VINCENT ZEHURIKIZE
Judge