IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL 2025-07228

		BETWEEN:		TAAITA KANNANGAKI 
					Appellant

		AND:			THE REPUBLIC 

Date of Hearing:			27 August 2025 (w/submissions)
Date of Judgment:			24 September 2025

Appearances:			Ms. Taotere Korimara for the Appellant
                                                         Ms. Kanrooti Aukitino Tooa for the Republic

J U D G M E N T

A brief fact of the case;

1.	This is an appeal against the decision of the Maiana magistrate's court in Maicrim 4/25. The appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence.
  
2.	The grounds are as follows;
-	The appellant was not informed of his right to legal counsel by the magistrates, which is a breach of natural justice.
-	The magistrate failed to confirm whether the appellant admitted or denied the factual basis presented by the Police Prosecutor.
-	The sentence imposed by the magistrates was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

Submissions and Analysis

3.	The appellant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for domestic violence under section 33 (1) (a) of the Family Peace Act 2014. The application is brought pursuant to section 68 of the Magistrate's Court Ordinance. 

4.	Counsel for the appellant submits that the magistrate court failed to inform the appellant of his right to a legal representative, and this constitutes a breach of natural justice, which is the appellant’s right to a fair trial under section 10(2) of the Constitution. This provision deals with the rights of a person charged with a criminal offence. According to the appellant’s Counsel, the failure of the magistrate court to inform the appellant of his right to a legal representative constitutes a breach of the right to a fair trial. 

5.	The Respondent submits that section 10(2)(d) of the Constitution allows the accused to defend himself in person or at his own expense, by a representative of his own choice. Still, the provision does not impose on the court the obligation to ensure legal representation for the accused or require the court to notify the accused of this choice.

6.	Counsel also submits that the magistrate court failed to give the appellant the opportunity to confirm or deny the facts of the case against him, which is contrary to section 193(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant cited the case of Atauea v The Republic [2021] 1; Criminal Appeal 5 of 2021 (25 August 2021), where the court held that a valid conviction requires an informed and unequivocal admission of the factual basis of the charge. The argument is that the prosecutor read the facts of the alleged charge to the accused, but the court did not ask the accused whether he agreed to it. Instead, the accused was asked whether he admitted the charge, which he affirmed. The minutes also show the appellant denying that he had hit his mother-in-law, which implies that the appellant did not understand the facts alleged in the charge against him. 

7.	The Respondent denies that the magistrate court did not allow the appellant the chance to confirm the alleged facts of the offence. The Respondent submits that after the charge was read out to the appellant, the magistrate court asked the appellant if he admitted to the charges (ko kakoaua bukinam aio?) and the appellant admitted twice.  The Respondent also submits that the appellant pleaded guilty to the charges therefore he cannot appeal against his conviction, pursuant to section 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code which states that ‘ no appeal shall be allowed in the case of an accused person who has pleaded guilty and has been convicted of such plea by the magistrate’s court, except to the extent or legality of sentence.’

8.	The appellant’s counsel also submits that the sentence imposed on the appellant is excessive since it is the maximum sentence for the offence for which he was charged. Section 33(2) of the Family Peace Act sets out a maximum sentence of six months for the offence of domestic violence. 

9.	The magistrate court failed to provide reasons for the sentence it imposed. The High Court in Ueue v The Republic [2019] KIHC 37; Criminal Appeal Case 1 of 2019 states that it is almost impossible for the High Court to be satisfied that the magistrate's court considered all relevant factors if the magistrate's court did not give reasons for their decision. 

10.	The Respondent argues that the sentence falls within the appropriate range, which is 6 months or a $250 fine. The offense involved multiple victims—his wife and mother-in-law—and the sentence imposed serves as a deterrent and a denunciation of intimate partner violence. 

11.	After reviewing the court minutes, it shows that the facts were read out to the appellant, but instead of asking him to confirm the facts, the court asked whether he agreed to the charge against him, and he said that he did. Then, the magistrate court asked him whether he had beaten his mother-in-law, and he denied it. The magistrate court asked him again, but he maintained his position that he denied hitting his mother-in-law. He only admitted to hitting his wife. 

12.	I accept the argument for the appellant that the appellant’s plea was equivocal because, although he pleaded guilty when first asked, he later denied hitting his mother-in-law. This indicates that he did not understand the meaning of the question when it was initially asked. Since it was clear that he denied hitting his mother-in-law, the magistrate's court should re-ask the question regarding his plea.

13.	Regarding the sentence imposed, I also agree that it is clearly excessive. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 6 months or a $250 fine; however, the magistrate court imposed the maximum penalty of 6 months for a first-time offender.

Result
14.	 For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The decision of the magistrate court in Maicrim 4/25 is quashed. The case is remitted to the magistrate court for a retrial. 

Order accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice