IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
HELD AT KIRITIMATI ISLAND
Criminal Case No. 2025-08642
Between:
The Republic									Complaint
And: 
George Langston	 							Accused

Counsel:	Ms. Kanroti Aukitino for the Republic
		Ms. Abunaba Takabwebwe for the Accused
DECISION 
“NO CASE TO ANSWER”
I. Introduction
1.	The accused stands charged with four counts under section 155A of the Penal Code Amendment Act 2017, arising from an incident alleged to have occurred on 10 August 2024 involving his biological daughter, then aged 10.  The charges are as follows:
1)	Count 1: Penetration of the victim’s vagina with his finger (s.155A(1));
2)	Count 2: Poking his finger inside the victim’s vagina (s.155A(3));
3)	Count 3: Poking his finger into the victim’s anus (s.155A(3));
4)	Count 4: Indecently rubbing the victim’s back while she was naked (s.155A(4)).
2.	At the close of the prosecution case, counsel for the accused submitted that there was no case to answer on Counts 1, 3, and 4.  The prosecution opposed the application.
II. Legal Framework
3.	Section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:
“When the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded… the court if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused… committed the offence, shall… record a finding of not guilty.”
4.	In Republic v Ioane [2024] KICA 3, the Court of Appeal clarified that section 256(1) sets a strict evidentiary threshold: the court must find that there is no evidence at all that the accused committed the offence for a no case submission to succeed.  The court must not assess credibility or reliability at this stage but only determine whether any evidence exists that could support a conviction.
5.	The Court went on and endorsed the approach in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039: where there is some evidence, even if weak or inconsistent, the matter must proceed to trial.  Only where there is no evidence should the court enter a finding of not guilty.
III. Summary of Evidence
6.	The victim testified that while bathing, the accused offered to wash her.  She declined and asked for a piece of soap.  The accused instead approached her and washed her back, then allegedly slipped his hand and poked her vagina.  She brushed his hand away.  He then removed his pants and stood naked, inviting her to bathe with him.  She felt scared and was disgusted.  She later went to her aunty and disclosed the incident to her.
7.	The aunty corroborated the victim’s immediate complaint, noting that the victim appeared tearful and distressed.  She accompanied the victim to the police station.
8.	Crucially, the victim did not offer any evidence that the accused penetrated her vagina or poked her anus.  These allegations are not supported by her testimony.
IV. Application of Section 256(1)
Count 1 – Penetration of the vagina (s.155A(1))
9.	The victim did not testify that the accused penetrated her vagina.  There is no other independent evidence (such as medical or other corroborative evidence) to support the alleged penetration.  The charge is therefore unsupported by any evidence.
10.	Under section 256(1), the court must record a finding of not guilty.
Count 2 – Poking of the vagina (s.155A(3))
11.	The victim testified that the accused poked her vagina after washing her back.  This is direct evidence of indecent touching.
12.	There is therefore evidence that the accused committed the offence.  The matter must proceed to trial.
Count 3 – Poking of the anus (s.155A(3))
13.	The victim did not allege anal contact.  There is no evidence supporting this count either.
14.	Under section 256(1), the court must record a finding of not guilty.
Count 4 – Indecent rubbing of the back (s.155A(4))
15.	The victim stated that the accused washed her back while she was naked, despite her objection.  This was followed by the accused removing his pants and inviting her to bathe with him.  The context and conduct are capable of being viewed as indecent.
16.	There is evidence of indecent touching.  The matter must proceed to trial.
V. Conclusion
17.	In determining whether the accused has a case to answer, the Court applies section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, guided by the principles articulated in Republic v Ioane [2024] KICA 3 and the seminal English authority R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039.  The Galbraith test requires the Court to distinguish between:
(i)	Cases where there is no evidence of the offence alleged, in which case the accused must be acquitted; and
(ii)	Cases where there is some evidence, however tenuous, which must be left to the tribunal of fact unless it is so weak or inconsistent that no reasonable jury could convict.
18.	In respect of Count 1 (penetration of the vagina), the victim did not testify to penetration, nor is there any corroborative medical or independent evidence.  Applying Galbraith and R v Shippey (1988) Crim LR 767, the evidence is so weak and unsupported that no reasonable jury could properly convict.  Accordingly, there is no case to answer, and a finding of not guilty is entered.
19.	As to Count 2 (poking of the vagina), the victim gave direct testimony that the accused poked her vagina after washing her back.  This constitutes evidence of indecent touching.  In accordance with R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4 and Galbraith, issues of credibility and reliability are for the trial court.  The evidence is sufficient to disclose a case to answer.
20.	Regarding Count 3 (poking of the anus), the victim did not allege anal contact, and there is no corroborative evidence.  Applying Galbraith and Shippey, the absence of any evidence compels a finding of not guilty.
21.	On Count 4 (indecent rubbing of the back), the victim testified that the accused washed her back while she was naked, despite her objection, and then removed his pants and invited her to bathe with him.  The context and conduct are capable of being viewed as indecent.  As Barker makes clear, even limited testimony in child sexual offence cases suffices to disclose a case to answer.  This count must therefore proceed to trial.
22.	In summary:
1)	Count 1: No evidence – Finding of not guilty.
2)	Count 2: Some evidence – Case to answer.
3)	Count 3: No evidence – Finding of not guilty.
4)	Count 4: Some evidence – Case to answer.
VI. ORDERS
23.	The Court accordingly orders:
a)	The accused is found not guilty on Counts 1 and 3.
b)	The accused is to stand trial on Counts 2 and 4.

DATED at Ronton, this 17th day of November 2025.

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