IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
Criminal Jurisdiction
(South Tarawa)

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE NO: 7 of 2022

THE REPUBLIC

v

ABERA TIMEA

Date of Hearing:	24th March 2025

Appearances:	Mr Mikaere Kakiarerei for the Republic
			Mr Taburuea Rubetaake for the Prisoner

SENTENCE
AMTEN, J – Abera Timea has pleaded guilty to 1 charge of manslaughter contrary to section 192(2) of the Penal Code, which carries a penalty of life imprisonment.
	The details of the incident were straightforward.  The individuals involved, the prisoner and the victim, were siblings residing with their uncle in Tabonikabauea, Bairiki.  On the evening of September 27, 2021, the prisoner encountered his brother on the main road, where the latter was vocally challenging passersby to a confrontation.  The prisoner admonished his brother, urging him to return home.  Once at home, while the prisoner was drinking water in front of the refrigerator, his brother approached and struck him in the face.  This prompted the prisoner to fall and become enraged.  He then rose, leading to a physical altercation between the two.  During this conflict, both parties utilized knives, resulting in the victim sustaining a fatal stab wound to the neck, which caused his death.
	The information against the prisoner was laid out on November 29, 2021, and the court did not receive the case until February 28, 2022.  However, it remained inactive until it was scheduled for mention on March 1, 2023.  On October 26, 2023, Mr. Taburuea, counsel for the prisoner, informed the court that a guilty plea was anticipated.  This plea was officially entered on November 16, 2023, and the case was adjourned to November 30, 2023, for sentencing submissions.  Subsequently, the case went quiet and reemerged on March 3, 2025, with submissions finally made on March 24, 2025.
	The prisoner is 33 years old, married, and has two young children.  Prior to the incident, he and his late brother resided with their uncle in Tabonkabwauea, Bairiki.  At the time of the offense, he was unemployed, and the family led a subsistence lifestyle; the deceased brother was also dependent on him.  Following the incident, he has taken on casual labor and serves as the primary provider for his family.  He has no prior criminal history.  After the incident, he relocated from Bairiki to Abemama, where he has become significantly more active in his church community.  Recently, he was appointed by the priest as a Concilio to assist the catechists in the religious administration throughout Abemama.  
	Mr. Mikaere, representing the prosecution, argued that due to the gravity of the offence and the resulting loss of life, the starting point is 7 years imprisonment.  He argued further that in consideration of the mitigation factors, the total sentence is one of 7 years.  
	Mr. Taburuea, representing the prisoner, argued that while a custodial sentence is inevitable, the circumstances of the case necessitate a 3-year imprisonment for the prisoner.
	In considering the appropriate sentence for the prisoner, I take into account the sentencing framework outlined by the Court of Appeal in Kaere Tekaei v Republic.  
	As noted by the Court of Appeal in Tekaei, there should be a starting point that reflects the seriousness of the offending having regard to the maximum sentence.  Where a plea of guilty of manslaughter is given, a reasonable starting point was 12 years of imprisonment.  
	The Court in Tekaei had this to say:
“Sentencing for manslaughter is a difficult exercise because there is such a multiplicity of circumstances in which someone may cause the death of another by acting or omitting to do something unlawfully.  There are consequently great differences in levels of culpability.  Sentences therefore can vary considerably.”
I concur with Judge Lambourne in his comments in Republic v Angirerei, where he said:
“A starting point of 12 or 14 years is not going to be the appropriate starting point for all cases of manslaughter. However, the starting point in a case where provocation has reduced a charge of murder to one of manslaughter is almost always going to be higher than the starting point in a case where the death has been the result of criminal negligence on the part of the offender.”
	In Angirerei (supra), Lambourne J, after comparing the seriousness of the offending with that in Tekaei, recommended that the starting point is one of 9 years imprisonment.  In the Republic v Anati, after doing a similar exercise, he recommended a starting point of 6 years.
	I believe that the situation in Angirerei is more severe in relation to the current case, as the victim in our case sustained only a neck injury, while the victim in Angirerei was unarmed and suffered multiple fatal blows.  Notably, the prisoner abandoned him for an extended period.  In Anati (supra), the prisoner was the sole individual armed, unlike in our case where both the prisoner and the victim were equipped with weapons.  Consequently, I assess that the appropriate starting point for the case at hand is a 5-year prison sentence.  There are no additional aggravating factors.
	The prisoner pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and is clearly remorseful.  He is a first offender.  For these features, I deduct 1 year and 6 months.  
	The prosecution of the case has experienced an intolerable delay, with nearly five years having passed since the offence occurred.  The prisoner is not responsible for most of this delay.  As outlined by the Court of Appeal in Li Jian Pei, the prisoner deserves a slight reduction in his sentence as compensation for the violation of his constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable timeframe.  I reduce his sentence by a further 4 months.
	The prisoner is convicted on his plea of guilty.  Taking all of the above matters into account, the prisoner is hereby sentenced to imprisonment of 3 years.  The sentence is to run from today.
Dated this 10th day of May 2025.

…………………………………
JUSTICE AOMORO. T. AMTEN
Puisne Judge