Republic v Peter [2025] KIHC 23; Criminal Appeal 7 of 2017 (9 April 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL 7 of 2017

BETWEEN: The Republic
Appellant

AND: Merelyn Peter
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 9 April 2025
Date of Judgment: 9 April 2025

Appearances: Ms. Teanneki Nemta for the Appellant
No appearance by and for the Respondent

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal against the magistrate court's decision in BaiCrim 01/17, delivered on 6 September 2017, regarding a ruling that there was no case to answer.

2. The case was called before the court in 2018, but nothing transpired afterward.

3. On 20 November 2023, the matter was called before the High Court; nothing happened as the appellant (Republic) did not attend, and the appellant did not provide evidence of service for the respondent.

4. In 2024, the case underwent the Pre-trial Conference (PTC) several times in preparation for listing for hearing. On 25 June 2024, at the PTC, Counsel Nemta represented the Appellant (Republic), but the minutes indicate that Counsel was unsure whether the Republic was the Appellant. The clerk confirmed to Counsel that the Republic was indeed the Appellant. Counsel requested an additional PTC to allow her to consider their position.

5. At the next PTC on 4 July 2024, a different Counsel came to stand in for Counsel Nemta for the Republic and requested copies of the appeal to verify that it was their appeal. She noted that Counsel Nemta had not informed her that it was indeed their appeal.

6. At the following PTC on 17 July 2024, neither party nor Counsel appeared.

7. On 31 July 2024, the case was listed again for a Pre-trial Conference, but none of the parties appeared. The respondent was supposed to be served by the appellant, so it was unclear whether service was made or not.

8. On 16 August 2024, the appeal was again listed for PTC; once more, neither the appellant nor the respondent appeared, and there was no way to ascertain whether the appellant had served the respondent.

9. On 19 December 2024, the matter was listed before the court for striking out since the appellant never bothered to attend the Pre-trial Conference. The respondent was supposed to be served with the Notice of Hearing by the appellant. Each time, the appellant did not show up, nor did the respondent, and there was no evidence that the respondent was ever served by the appellant. This could explain the respondent's non-appearance. On that date, none of the parties appeared. Again, the court could not determine whether the appellant had served the respondent.

10. The matter was listed again for PTC on 11 February of this year. On that date, another Counsel appeared for the Republic. Counsel requested a further PTC date to serve the respondent.

11. On 26 February of this year (2025), the PTC minutes stated that Counsel for the Republic appeared and informed the PTC clerk that no action had been taken by the Republic (appellant), and the respondent remained absent with no evidence of service.

12. On 26 March 2025, Counsel Tairake for the appellant (Republic) attended the PTC and mentioned that he was standing in for Counsel Nemta. The appeal was then assigned a hearing date of today, 9 April at 10 am.

13. Counsel Nemta appeared this morning, stating that the Republic is the respondent and requested that the appeal be struck out since the other party was not present.

14. I informed Counsel that the Republic is the appellant according to the Notice of Appeal filed in 2017. Counsel subsequently withdrew her verbal application for striking out, as she was unaware it was the Republic’s appeal.

15. I reminded her that she was informed at the PTC on 25 June 2024, when she raised the same question, that it was indeed the Republic’s appeal. She had forgotten this fact and requested another date to consider their position.

16. I denied her request. Based on the record stated above, it is clear that the Republic is not serious about its appeal. They filed their appeal in 2017, which means it was eight years ago. They did not bother to request an earlier hearing date since the last hearing was in 2018. They did not attend several pre-trial conferences or listings before the High Court on 20 November 2023 and 19 December 2024 when the matter was listed for striking out. When Counsel arrived today, she sought the appeal to be struck out, forgetting that it was their own appeal. Then, Counsel requested more time to consider their position upon realizing it was their appeal. This is an abuse of process and a waste of the court’s time. The appellant has been irresponsible, and it is unfair to the respondent. The appeal must be struck out for want of prosecution.

17. The Republic, as the appellant, was supposed to serve the respondent. The Notice of Hearing was placed in their pigeonhole, following standard practice. Counsel could not confirm whether their office had served the respondent. This clarifies why the respondent did not attend today’s hearing.

ORDER: In light of the above reasons, the appeal is struck out for want of prosecution.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice