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

Monite v Republic [1996] KIHC 21; HCCrA 12.96 (28 June 1996)

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

HCCrA 12/96

BETWEEN:

BARETEITI MONITE
Appellant

AND:

THE REPUBLIC
Respondent

Mr D Lambourne for the Appellant
Ms T Beero for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

This appellant was involved in the same incident as the appellant in the previous case which was criminal appeal No. 14/96. The present appellant was seen drunk by a police officer. When the police officer approached him he challenged the police officer to fight a dual. The police officer arrested him whereupon he committed the offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and also the offence of resisting arrest. When the appellant appeared in the magistrates' court he pleaded guilty to all of those offences. In respect of the charge of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty he was sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment 2 years. For the offence of challenging to fight a dual he was sentenced for imprisonment for 6 months and for the third offence of resisting arrest he was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment, all sentences to run concurrently.

As I said in the previous appeal, there is no doubt that assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty is a serious offence which will normally attract a term of imprisonment. This particular incident was a serious one because the appellant not only assaulted the police officer but caused injuries, that is injuries to the lips and an injury to the foot and some scratches to the elbow. It of course goes to the defendant's credit that he pleaded guilty to all of these charges which is always indicative of remorse but the lower court clearly did not give him any credit for that because on the first charge he attracted the maximum penalty.

He is not a first offender. He does have certain convictions on his record and they appear to be for minor offences not related to violence. However, the fact that he does have a criminal record certainly is no assistance to him. But having said that, for a person to attract a maximum sentence where he pleads guilty and the injuries caused to the police officer concerned are certainly not of a serious nature (although there is no getting away from the fact that a police officer was injured) seems to me to be wrong and the sentence to be excessive.

I therefore allow the appeal in relation to the sentence for the charge of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty and the sentence of the magistrates on that count is set aside and in lieu thereof the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 9 months and that sentence of course is to run concurrently with the other sentences.

THE HON R LUSSICK
CHIEF JUSTICE
(28/06/96)