IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 1996

BETWEEN:

NUEA TABUIA
Appellant

AND:

THE REPUBLIC
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 17 March 1997
Delivery of Judgment: 25 March 1997

Mr D Lambourne for the Appellant
Mr T Tabane for the Respondent

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Gibbs V.P., Connolly and Ryan JJ.A)

On 25 November 1996 Nuea Tabuia, a clerk of the court, was convicted before the High Court at Betio of the offence of making a false entry in the South Tarawa Land Court Minute Book contrary to s. 299(1) of the Penal Code and of the further offence of obtaining money by a false pretence contrary to s.301(a).

The false entry purported to be a record of a land court case in her favour which she presented to the Batik of Kiribati to enable her to borrow $1 000 from the Bank.

She pleaded guilty to both offences. The maximum penalty for the first offence is 7 years and for the second 5 years imprisonment. The case resembles that of Tamuera which has also been dealt with at this sitting of the court. She was sentenced to 1 year for the first offence and,months for, the second, the sentences to be served concurrently. Seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentences are manifestly excessive.

She was in a position to commit the first offence by reason of her position of trust as the court clerk who kept the minutes of court decisions. In addition, it is said that she bad the assistance of the principal magistrate. The falsification of court records is particularly serious involving as it does not only a breach of trust but possible detriment to innocent people in the future.

She is 33 years of age, married, with 3 children aged 12, 7 and 2. Her husband is a seaman who is frequently away and she lives in Betio with her elderly father. She has no previous convictions. However it cannot be said that she committed these offences under pressure of necessity. The money was used to buy luxuries - a TV set and gifts for her mother and children. It is right to say that the money borrowed has been completely repaid but that fact cannot mitigate the seriousness of the offences.

Lussick CJ in sentencing her concluded, rightly in our opinion that the only appropriate penalty was imprisonment. The term of imprisonment for the offence against s.299(1) accords with that imposed on Tamuera the offences in each case being similar in effect and in seriousness. It is not really arguable that the sentences are manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal must therefore be refused.

Vice President
Judge of Appeal
Judge of Appeal