Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Kiribati

Republic v Tenamorua [1999] KIHC 2; HCCrC 18.98 (18 January 1999)

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

HCCrC 18/98

THE REPUBLIC

versus

EBENRI TENAMORUA

Mr T Tabane for the Republic
Mr D Lambourne for the Accused

Date of Hearing: 18 January 1999

JUDGMENT

The accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of causing grievous harm contrary to section 220 of the Penal Code Cap. 67 in that on the 17th March 1998 at Bangantebure, South Tarawa, he unlawfully caused grievous harm to Atiri Kakianako by biting off the top part of her right ear. At the time of the offence the accused and the victim had been living in the de facto relationship of husband and wife for 9 years. What caused the accused to attack the victim was the latter's admission that she had committed adultery with another man. It is alleged that the accused lost his temper and bit off part of her right ear and then punched her on the head. The victim does not appear to have received any medical treatment and I have heard evidence from the victim's father that the injury to the right ear was quite small.

The accused is aged 31 and comes originally from the island of Beru but is now living with his parents at Eita. I am satisfied from the evidence of the victim's father that what the accused did was completely out of character for him. I accept that what the victim told the accused amounted to a very substantial provocation which led to the assault upon her. The accused is a person of previous good character and he has fully cooperated with the police. He has shown remorse not only by his plea of guilty but by his apology to the victim and her family. In fact the victim's father speaks highly of him and attributes the blame for the incident to his daughter.

In my view the offence is one which warrants a term of imprisonment as punishment, but in the circumstances some leniency ought to be extended to the accused. Accordingly, the accused is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 6 months but it is ordered that the sentence shall not take effect unless, during a period of 2 years from today, the accused commits another offence punishable with imprisonment and thereafter the High Court orders that the original sentence shall take effect.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(18/01/99)