Republic v Taukaro [2025] KIHC 81; Criminal Case 00044 of 2020 (24 December 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE 2020-00044

BETWEEN: REPUBLIC

AND: TIAEKI TAUKARO

Date of Hearing: 10 December 2025
Date of Judgment: 24 December 2025

Appearances: Mr Tairaki Ioane for the Republic

Ms Henty Pine for the Accused

SENTENCE

Brief Fact

1. Tom Utimawa pleaded guilty to three counts under the Dangerous Drug Ordinance, Cap 23, following the amended charges filed on October 7, 2025.
   
2. The three counts read as follows;
   

Count 1: Possession of Indian hemp contrary to section 8(b) of the Dangerous Drug Ordinance, Cap 23.

Count 2: Cultivation of Indian hemp contrary to section 7 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 23.

Count 3: Selling of Indian hemp contrary to section 8(b) of the Dangerous Drug Ordinance, Cap 23.

3. The offences carry a maximum penalty of a fine of $2000 and imprisonment for 10 years pursuant to section 39(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.
   
4. Below is the agreed fact;
   

“On the 20th day of July 2020, the Criminal Investigating team executed the search warrant at the accused’s residence and found seeds and dried leaves of Indian hemp or marijuana in his possession.”

There were 3 Indian hemp plants, or marijuana, being cultivated and planted in 3 small pots, which were seized by the police during the raid.

During the course of the investigation, it was found that Tiaeki Taukaro had also been engaged in selling this illegal substance to a person named Bwabwane Naurua.

During the interrogation of the accused, he admitted to the offense and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to the charges laid against him.

Agreed by both Counsels on this day 9^th day of December 2025.”

5. In the circumstances of this offence, the prosecution raises a starting point of $1000 and 5 years. Aggravating factors raised include that the plant is prohibited because it can harm the community. In support of this point is the case R v Folik. The Prosecution submits that the accused's cultivation and sale of this illegal plant, knowing that it is illegal, constitute an aggravating factor. This should raise the sentence by 1 year and a $200 fine.
   
6. Mitigating factors also raised by the Prosecution include the early guilty plea, his cooperation with the police, demonstrated remorse, and a clean police record. These must reduce the sentence by two and a half years and a $300 fine deduction.
   
7. The Prosecution also submits that the accused's right to a fair trial, as stated in the Constitution, has been breached because the prosecution of the matter was delayed for almost 5 years. The sentence shall be further reduced by 6 months and $200. In total, the end sentence proposed is three years' imprisonment and a fine of $700.
   
8. Four cases were relied upon in support of the Prosecution’s submission as follows; Republic v Kourabi HCCrmC 29 of 2017, Republic v Foliki [2021] KIHC 12; Criminal Case 51 of 2020 (25 November 2021), Republic v Morlier [2015] KIHC 82; Criminal Case 09 of 2015 (23 October 2015), and the most recent, The Republic v Takabwebwe Timerita HCCrmC 2025-00309, in which the offender was involved in selling this Indian hemp to a teenager.
   
9. The prosecution emphasizes the importance of a sentencing principle, such as public deterrence. Counsel submits that this illegal plant is increasingly used by the public and that the sentences imposed in past cases do not seem to deter people from committing the same offence. Thus, it is essential to impose a penalty that would deter the accused and members of the public from committing the same offence.
   
10. The Defense proposes a starting point of one year of imprisonment. The early guilty plea should reduce this by 30%, resulting in 8 months. His clean police report, his rehabilitation efforts to secure steady employment after the offence, and the nearly 5-year prosecutorial delay would significantly reduce his sentence. A non-custodial outcome or a substantially reduced custodial sentence, whether immediate or suspended, is appropriate. Alternatively, the Defense proposes a fine of less than $500 as a more fitting penalty.
    
11. They also relied on the same cases mentioned in the paragraph above. In Kourabi, the High Court ordered payment of a fine within one month, and in default, the accused was to be sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment. In Folik, the sentence was also a fine of $250, payable within one month, or one month's imprisonment in default. In Morlier, the fine was $2000 and 9 months' imprisonment, which was extreme.
    
12. The Defense argues that the significant delay in prosecution outweighs the Prosecution’s aim to apply a deterrence principle. While I concur that deterrence is a suitable sentencing factor for this offence, I agree with the Defense that the considerable delay in prosecuting the accused renders it inappropriate. There appears to be no justifiable reason for this prolonged delay.
    
13. For the reasons stated above, I sentence the offender to a fine of $600 payable within two weeks, with 1 month imprisonment in default.
    

Order accordingly.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice