Rytz v Attorney-General [2020] KIHC 23; Civil Case 42 of 2018 (9 October 2020)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI 2019

CIVIL CASE NO. 42 OF 2018

[MATTHIEU RYTZ
[RIMON RIMON APPLICANTS
[
BETWEEN [AND
[
[ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF
[KIRIBATI POLICE SERVICES RESPONDENT

Before: The Hon Chief Justice Sir John Muria

21 February 2019

Ms Kiata Kabure for Applicants
Ms Ruria Iteraera for Respondent

JUDGMENT

Muria, CJ: By an Originating Summons filed on 4 September 2018, the applicants have applied for the following declarations:

1. A declaration declaring the unlawful detention of Laptop Mac Pro 15” and projector detained by the Respondent;
2. A declaration declaring the unlawful detention of Sony A7S Full Frame DSLR Camera with its 4 batteries, 1 lens cap, 1 camera case bag also detained by the Respondent;
   
3. A declaration declaring the release of Laptop Mac Pro 15” and projector to be released and returned to the 1^st named Applicant, owner of such properties;
   
4. A declaration declaring the release of Sony A7S Full Frame DSLR Camera with its 4 batteries. 1 lens cap, 1 camera case bag to be released and returned to the 2^nd named Applicant, owner of such property;
   
5. General Damages;
   
6. Such further order or orders as this Honourable Court thinks fit”.
   

2. The application is supported by the affidavit filed by Matthieu Rytz, one of the applicants.

Brief background

3. The brief background to this case appears in the affidavit of Matthieu Rytz. The applicants came to Kiribati in December 2017 on a Visitor’s Permit. On
31 December 2017 the applicants visited Tebikenikora Village in South Tarawa, a village that has been featured, nationally and internationally, as experiencing the heavy brunt of climate change impact. During the two-hour visit to Tebikenikora Village, the applicants took 360 photographs showing the effect of the impact of climate change on the village and people.

4. On 1 January 2018, the applicants went to Taneau Village in Abaiang for a visit. The next day 2 January 2018, while still in Abaiang, the applicants were arrested and taken back to South Tarawa by speed boat.

5. The police confiscated the following filming items from the applicants for breaches of their Visitor’s Permit:

• A Laptop Mac Pro 15”
• A Projector
• A Sony ATS Full Frame DSLR Camera in a camera case bag
• 3 Batteries
• 3 Memory cards
  

6. The applicants were subsequently charged with one count of Giving False Information contrary to section 122(a) of the Penal Code and one count of Exhibiting a film to the public without licence contrary to section 3(8) of the Exhibition of Film Ordinance (Cap 31A). This Court understands that the criminal case against the accused had been nollied by the Attorney-General and the accused had already left the country in 2019.

Issues

7. The main issue here is whether the detention of the items belonging to the applicants by the police was lawful or not. Secondly, if it was not, are the applicants entitled to damages.

Disposition of the Case

8. The applicants came to Kiribati as visitors. They were issued with Visitor’s Visas which did not permit a visitor to Kiribati to engage in any form of undertaking, including filming and film exhibition without licence. The applicants brought with them a Film Projector, a Laptop Mac Pro 15”, a 5TB red hard drive, 3 (128 GB) memory cards and a Sony A7S Full Frame DSLR camera. There can be no argument that the items mentioned were apparatus capable of being used in making films and production of still photographs for exhibition.

9. The natural question that must be answered is: Why did the applicants have to bring with them such film-making items? It is not too far-fetched to infer that the applicants purposely brought with them the filming and photographing equipments to enable them to complete the documentary filming project on the effect of climate change in Kiribati. The applicants themselves confirmed that they made the documentary film featured “Anote’s Ark” which they said was completed on 22 December 2017 and will be launched in America at the end of January 2018. Conveniently, the applicant came to Kiribati with their filming equipment at the end of December 2017 and before the launching of their premiered film on Kiribati in January 2018. The applicants’ story that they came only as tourists and not to do climate-change effects filming or photographing is not acceptable since it is not the truth.

10. The applicants lied to the Immigration authorities and as such they were clearly in breach of their Visitor’s Permit. As such they had no cause to complain when the police arrested them for breaking the laws of Kiribati, namely section 122 of the Penal Code for giving false information and section 3(8) of the Exhibition of Films Ordinance for filming and film exhibition without licence.

11. In the circumstances of this case, the police were entitled to seize the items itemized in paragraph above. Consequently, all the declarations and orders sought are refused.

12. The items seized become the properties of the State and may be disposed of in such manner as the State deems it necessary.

Dated the 9^th day of October 2020

SIR JOHN MURIA
Chief Justice