About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Kiribati

KI023

Back

Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2001

REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

(No.15 of 2001)

I assent,

Beretitenti

2002

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PENAL CODE (CAP. 67)

Commencement:

2002

Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2001.

Amendment of section 256

2. Section 256 of the Penal Code is amended –

(a) by repealing “original” wherever it appears throughout the whole of that section 256;

(b) by renumbering the existing section 256 as “section 256(1)”; and

(c) by adding a new subsection (2) as follows –

“(2) Where any person is found in possession of anything described in subsection (1), it shall be inferred that the person came into possession of the document as a party to its theft unless there is sufficient evidence adduced to displace the inference.”

PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2001

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. This short Act seeks to amend the Penal Code with a view to empower the Court to admit as evidence in court any document whether it is an original or a copy of the original as the case may be in a criminal prosecution of a person who has been charged with larceny or theft of document specified under section 256.

2. It is also proposed that a person possessing a copy of a document under this section once amended will give rise to an inference that such person has stolen the document unless he displaces the inference by adducing contrary evidence.

3. Under this section 256 of the Penal Code, it would seem that no offence of theft of a document is committed if the offender steals only a copy of such document in question. However, the advance in modern photocopying technology does not appear to support such distinction between an original document or a copy of the document as a photocopied document in most if not all cases looks just as good as an original document.

4. Furthermore whether the offender steals an original document or a copy of such document, such theft of the document is still a theft of the same document. It might be the case also that such copy is the only copy available.

5. Hence the deletion of the word “original” as appears throughout section 256 of

the Penal Code (Section 2 of the Act).

Michael N. Takabwebwe

Attorney General

9 November 2001