IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
(BEFORE THE HON R LUSSICK C.J.)

HCCrC 19/96

THE REPUBLIC

versus

NUEA TABUIA

Ms T Beero for the Republic
Mr D Lambourne for the Accused

SENTENCE

The facts of this case have a similarity to the case which I have just dealt with, that is the case of the Republic vs Tamuera Temwea, criminal Case No. 18/96. In the present case the accused has pleaded guilty to one charge under section 299(1) of the Penal Code Cap. 67 in that she made a false entry purporting to be the record of a land court case wilfully and with intent to defraud. The accused has also pleaded guilty to a charge under section 301(a) in that by false pretence with intent to defraud she obtained from the Bank of Kiribati money in the form of a loan amounting to about $1,000. The maximum penalty prescribed for the first offence is 7 years' imprisonment and for the second offence 5 years' imprisonment. 

The accused has been present in court during the time that I dealt with the previous case and has heard my comments in relation to the offences in that case. The facts in this case, as I have said, bear a similarity in that the accused was assisted, according to her, by the Presiding Magistrate in the preparation of the fictitious court record which she presented to the Bank to obtain a loan. 

I take account of the fact that the accused is a 33 year old woman with 3 children aged 12, 7 and 2. Her husband is a seaman and is frequently away. She lives in Betio with her elderly father. In her favour, she is a first offender, she has pleaded guilty and, I am told, has fully cooperated with the Police, which extends to an offer to give evidence in further prosecutions against other persons. Counsel has again submitted the records of two cases which were submitted in the previous case and which he says are comparable sentences. Again I say that the facts of the present case distinguish it from those cases.

Counsel has once more put forward everything that can be said in the accused's favour. Nevertheless the offences are very serious. They were committed simply so that the accused could obtain things that she otherwise could not afford. The money was used to buy a TV and some gifts for the children and some of it was given to her mother. The accused never hesitated to enter into what she must have known were very serious offences involving the criminal cooperation of at least one magistrate. It is irrelevant that the money borrowed on the loan has been fully repaid. She is not being charged in connection with default on the loan. As in the previous case, what she did amounted to a gross abuse of a trusted position. Offences like this are a blot on the justice system of this country and it is inevitable that a loss of confidence in the courts by the public must result. 

Having taken into account all of the factors that I have mentioned which go to the accused's favour, it is my view that because of the gravity of these offences the only appropriate penalty is one of imprisonment. On the offence under section 299(1) the accused is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year. On the offence under section 301(a) the accused is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months, such sentences to be served concurrently.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(25/11/96)