Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Nauru

Tannang v Director for Public Prosecution [2006] NRSC 3; SC CRA Nos 1-7 & 9 of 2006 (8 April 2006)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 9/2006

BETWEEN:

GEORGE TANNANG
1^ST APPELLANT

JUSTIN KAM
2^ND APPELLANT

TABUIA NAKOTI
3^RD APPELLANT

ROY DETABENE
4^TH APPELLANT

GAD DEMAUNGA
5^TH APPELLANT

BINOKA KOURATAKE
6^TH APPELLANT

KEAKI BEAKS
7^TH APPELLANT

AND:

DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTION
RESPONDENT

Appeal from decision of District Court in Criminal Case Nos. 6, 13,14,16,17, 23 & 34/2006

DECISION

Six of the seven Appellants have been convicted, on their own admission, of stealing, an offence pursuant to S. 398 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty for which is 3 years imprisonment with hard labour. The Appellant George Tannang was charged with conspiring to steal. I shall consider his appeal as if he had been charged with stealing.

This is a first offence for each Appellant and each pleaded Guilty when brought before the Court. A first offence as a rule leads to a lesser penalty than otherwise. So does a plea of Guilty. A plea of Guilty usually leads to a reduction in penalty of between one quarter and one third.

All these Appellants are entitled to a reduction in the penalty which would otherwise have been appropriate because they are first offenders and pleaded Guilty.

They are men in their late teens to later twenties. They are married with children. They had been employed by Capelle's and their offences were much the same - pilfering Capelle's goods in the course of their employment. They seem all to have been in it together. They were immediately dismissed when what had been going on was discovered. The dismissals are severe penalties in themselves.

The things they stole were nearly all foodstuffs although Keaki Baeke and Binoka Kouratake took a digital camera. Most unfortunately the value of the items taken has not been alleged. In a Complaint alleging theft the value of the goods stolen should always be set out.

Although Mr. Clodumar, to whom the Court is indebted for agreeing at short notice to represent the appellants, described it as petty theft, I doubt if Capelle's, the victim, would regard what happened as petty. It was the taking of valuable merchandise over significant periods by employees from their employer.

The Court must regard the offences as serious. People who steal must know that they are likely to go to jail if brought before a Court.

The Magistrates sentenced each Appellant to six months imprisonment. That was too long. While the Appellants should serve some time in jail, taking into account the nature of the offences, the circumstances of the Appellants, that they lost their jobs, that it is for each a first offence and each pleaded Guilty, a sentence of 2 months imprisonment would be appropriate.

Each appeal is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment on each Appellant is reduced to 2 months.

THE HON. ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
CHIEF JUSTICE
8^TH April 2006.