The purpose of the Act is to provide protection for victims of domestic violence, to prevent and eliminate violence within domestic relationships, to ensure the safety of children who witness or experience domestic violence, and to enact provisions consistent with Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Act defines domestic violence in detail (See Part 1, Section 4.1.a-c) and allows victims of domestic violence to file for protection orders and allows a court to issue an emergency or ex parte protection order (See Part 2: Protection Orders). The Act also mandates government ministries to enact public awareness programs on violence within families, the collection of data regarding the incidences and frequency of domestic violence to support preventative measures, and training regarding human rights and the equality of women for public officials, health care professionals, and police officers. It also provides for the establishment of support facilities for victims of domestic and gender-based violence. (See Part 3: Prevention and Response). The Act also provides that police personnel while responding to a report of domestic violence sufficiently supported by evidence must undertake to do all things necessary for a court to commence the criminal prosecution of the matter. (See Part 4: Police Powers and Duties, Section 30.) Health care professionals who have provided assistance to victims of domestic violence must advise the victim about counseling and advise the victim to file a report with the police. (See Part 5: Role of Health Care Professionals and Social Service Providers.) Lastly, the Act prescribes that the crime of domestic violence is punishable by six months to three years imprisonment, as well as accompanying monetary fines. Certain circumstances such as repeat offenses, offenses against pregnant women or persons with special needs, domestic violence committed against or witnessed by a child, violence resulting in severe or life-threatening injury, or acts committed with a weapon constitute aggravations resulting in enhanced penalties to offenders. (See Section 6: Offences and Penalties.)
Kiribati
Legislation
Domestic Case Law
Republic v. Arawaia Kiribati Court of Appeal (2013)
The respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of indecent assault and two charges of defilement for repeatedly raping his wife’s 12-year-old granddaughter. When the girl reported the rapes to her grandmother, the respondent’s wife, he apologized. Later, the respondent wanted the victim to sleep with him and the victim’s grandmother told her to do so. The respondent again raped the victim. The High Court, in sentencing the respondent to two years imprisonment, considered his early plea, the seriousness of the case, and his apology to the girl. Counsel for the Republic appealed on the grounds that the two-year sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Republic argued that due to the rising prevalence of sexual offences in Kiribati, sentencing guidelines were needed. She further contended that the High Court erred in considering the respondent’s apology to the girl a mitigating factor. Relying on Kimaere v The Republic, a Kiribati Court of Appeal decision from 2005, and sentencing standards of New Zealand and Australia, the Court found that a five-year prison sentence was an appropriate starting point in defilement cases. The Court noted that in cases involving multiple offenses, it is more important that the overall sentence appropriately reflect the entirety of the defendant’s conduct rather than adding together the sentences for each offense. Determining that the respondent’s conduct justified a prison sentence of seven to eight years, the Court then reduced his sentence for his early plea to a total of five years. The Court found that the sentencing judge incorrectly weighted the respondent’s apology as a mitigating factor. The Court also held that the starting point for the indecent assault charges would have been two-and-a-half years before accounting for mitigating factors.
Attorney-General v. Tion Kiribati Court of Appeal (2015)
The respondent had drunken intercourse with the complainant. He claimed that he mistook the complainant for his wife in his drunken stupor. She also mistook the respondent to be her husband during the intercourse. After intercourse, she realized that the respondent was not her husband. The respondent also claimed that he did not know the complainant was not his wife until this moment. Consequently, the court acquitted the respondent of rape and criminal trespass. The lower court reasoned that the onus was on the prosecution to establish whether the respondent had done something to impersonate the complainant’s husband and concluded that there was no evidence to support a finding of impersonation with the intent to deceive. The Attorney-General appealed this decision. The appellate court remarked that the lower court’s conclusion that there was no evidence of impersonation was incorrect. Whereas the lower court was focused on the testimony of the complainant regarding her own state of mind, the proper analysis should have concerned the state of mind of the respondent. While the Court of Appeal was suspicious of the respondent’s account that his actions had been the result of a mistake, it still found that the trial judge “had the great advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses,” and could have reasonably found the respondent’s testimony credible. Therefore, the lower court could have had “reasonable doubt” as to his guilt. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Attorney-General v. Mataua Kiribati Court of Appeal (2019)
The respondent was convicted of two charges of defilement of a 13-year-old girl and sentenced to four years and six months of imprisonment even though the maximum punishment for each charge was life imprisonment. The Attorney General of Kiribati appealed this sentence as “manifestly inadequate.” The Court of Appeal of Kiribati allowed the appeal and delineated the proper framework for sentencing in the context of this offense. First, the court noted that the minimum sentence for defilement should be five years and that any aggravating or mitigating factors must be accounted for in the final sentencing decision. Second, a court must make an upward adjustment for any aggravating factors external to the criminal act such as a person’s relevant criminal record. Third, a court should allow a reduction of the sentence where there are mitigating factors, such as guilty pleas, expressions of genuine remorse, prior good character, cooperation with police, or the youth of the offender. Fourth, a court should reduce the sentence based on the amount of time the offender spent in custody prior to sentencing. Finally, where a sentence would be less than two years, the court should consider a suspended sentence. Considering the aggravating factor of the multiple instances of sexual abuse against the victim and the mitigating factor of the respondent’s record of past good character, the court found the initial sentence manifestly inadequate and adjusted it to six years and six months imprisonment.