IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
HELD AT KIRITIMATI ISLAND
Criminal Case No. 2025-08466
Between:
The Republic									Complaint
And: 
Kantabu Teangira	 							Accused

Counsel:	Ms. Raman Teneaki for the Republic
		Ms. Abunaba Takabwebwe for the Accused
RULING
(1) Introduction
1.	The accused, aged 13 at the time of the alleged offence and now 14, is charged under section 134(1) of the Penal Code Amendment Act 2017 for sexual exploitation of a child.  
2.	The Court must determine whether proceedings fall within the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 (JJA), the Children, Young People and Family Welfare Act 2013 (CYPFWA), and whether the High Court properly retains jurisdiction.
(2) The Issue
3.	The central issues are 
(a)	whether the accused, being a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, must be dealt with under the JJA;
(b)	whether the High Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over the matter;
(c)	whether section 14 of the Penal Code (Cap 67), which establishes a rebuttable presumption of incapacity for children under 14, is engaged and must be addressed before trial; and
(d)	whether the offence under section 134(1) qualifies as a “serious crime” under the JJA.
(3) Submission of the Accused
4.	Counsel for the accused submits that Mr. Kantabu Teangira was 13 years old at the time of the alleged offence and is therefore a “child” and “juvenile” within the meaning of section 2 of the JJA.  
5.	It is argued that proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the safeguards and rehabilitative principles of the JJA and CYPFWA, including closed court hearings, simplified explanation of charges, and consideration of age and personal circumstances.  
6.	Counsel further invokes section 14 of the Penal Code, submitting that the presumption of incapacity must be determined as a threshold issue before trial.
7.	The defence emphasizes that the best interests of the child must guide all decisions, with rehabilitation and family involvement prioritized.
(4) Submission of the Prosecution
8.	The prosecution accepts that the accused was 13 at the time of the alleged offence and acknowledges the applicability of the JJA safeguards.  
9.	It submits that the seriousness of the offence warrants trial in the High Court, which retains jurisdiction over serious criminal matters involving juveniles.
10.	The prosecution does not oppose the application of protective provisions, including closed court proceedings, youth officer reports, and sentencing restrictions.
(5) Analysis of the Legal Framework
5.1 Juvenile Justice Act 2015
11.	Under section 2 of the JJA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 14, and a “juvenile” includes both children and young persons.  The accused, being 13 at the time of the offence, is a child and therefore a juvenile.
12.	Section 3(1) of the JJA requires all courts other than the High Court to sit as juvenile courts when hearing charges against juveniles.  While the High Court is excluded from this default requirement, section 3(2) permits any court, including the High Court, to proceed with juvenile matters where it is undesirable to adjourn the case.  This provision does not confer jurisdiction on the High Court but allows it to continue proceedings involving juveniles when adjournment would be impractical or contrary to the interests of justice.  In such circumstances, the court must apply the full procedural and protective safeguards of the JJA.  Given the seriousness of the offence and the need for judicial continuity, the Court finds it appropriate to retain jurisdiction and proceed in accordance with the JJA..  
13.	Section 8 outlines procedural safeguards, including simplified explanation of charges, inquiry into understanding, and the preparation of youth officer reports.  
14.	Although the prosecution did not address the presumption of incapacity under section 14 of the Penal Code, the Court considers it a necessary threshold issue given the accused’s age and directs that it be addressed prior to trial.
15.	Section 11 prohibits imprisonment of children, and section 15 provides a range of rehabilitative options.  Section 12 permits detention for serious crimes, subject to ministerial direction.
16.	The Schedule to the JJA defines “serious crimes” to include rape, attempted rape, and sexual exploitation offences.  Section 134(1) of the Penal Code Amendment Act 2017 criminalises sexual exploitation of children and is consistent with the types of offences listed in the Schedule.   Accordingly, the offence charged qualifies as a “serious crime” under the JJA.
5.2 Children, Young People and Family Welfare Act 2013
17.	The CYPFWA reinforces the protective framework by affirming the best interests of the child as a primary consideration (section 6).  It requires the Court to prioritize rehabilitation, family involvement, and timely intervention.  Section 23 empowers courts to refer cases to the Director of Child and Family Welfare where care and protection concerns arise.
5.3 Penal Code – Section 14
18.	Section 14 establishes a rebuttable presumption of incapacity for children under 14.
19.	The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the accused had sufficient understanding of the wrongfulness of the act.
20.	This threshold issue must be addressed before trial.
(6) Court Finding
21.	The Court finds that:
1)	The accused, being 13 years old at the time of the alleged offence, is a “child” and therefore a “juvenile” under the JJA.
2)	The procedural and protective safeguards of the JJA apply to these proceedings, including closed court hearings, youth officer reporting, and sentencing restrictions.
3)	The presumption of incapacity under section 14 of the Penal Code must be addressed as a threshold issue before trial; the prosecution bears the burden of rebuttal.
4)	The offence charged under section 134(1) of the Penal Code Amendment Act 2017, sexual exploitation of a child, is a “serious crime” within the meaning of the JJA.
5)	The accused is properly charged under section 134(1), which governs the alleged offence;
6)	Section 3(2) of the JJA permits the High Court to proceed with the matter without adjournment, provided it applies the full safeguards of the Act;
7)	The CYPFWA reinforces the obligation to act in the best interests of the child, requiring emphasis on rehabilitation, family involvement, and protective measures.
8)	Accordingly, the matter shall proceed in this Court, subject to strict adherence to the above safeguards and directions.
(7) Orders
22.	Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
a)	Closed Court Proceedings: The trial shall be conducted in closed court pursuant to section 3(4) of the JJA.
b)	Youth Officer Report: A youth officer’s report shall be obtained under section 8(8) of the JJA prior to trial.
c)	Threshold Issue: The prosecution shall address and rebut the presumption of incapacity under section 14 of the Penal Code before the matter may proceed to full trial.
d)	Sentencing Restrictions: No sentence of imprisonment shall be imposed unless the offence is found to be a “serious crime” under section 12 of the JJA and the statutory conditions therein are satisfied.
e)	Rehabilitation Priority: In line with the CYPFWA, the Court shall prioritize rehabilitative measures, family involvement, and protective interventions in any disposition.
f)	Age-Appropriate Process: The Court further directs that the accused be provided with a simplified explanation of the charge and proceedings, and that all interactions be conducted in a manner appropriate to his age and understanding, pursuant to section 8 of the JJA.
23.	It is so ordered.
DATED at Ronton, this 18th day of November 2025.

__________________________
HON. AOMORO T. AMTEN
Judge of the High Court