Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Regina v Havilegu [1994] SBHC 56; HCSI-CRC 62 of 1993 (9 June 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No.62 of 1993

REGINA

-v-

WILLIAM HAVILEGU

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)
Criminal Case No.62 of 1993

Hearing: 29th April, 9th June 1994
Judgement: 9th June 1994

J. Faga for Prosecution
C. Tagaraniana for the Defendant

PALMER J: The accused is charged with the offence of giving false information to a public servant contrary to section 122 of the Penal Code, the particulars of which read that on the 22nd of December 1991, the accused informed Noah Teuna, a public servant, that Patrick Legumana intended to withdraw the case reported to Police earlier on against the accused, which the said accused knew to be false, intending thereby to cause the said Noah Teuna to close the investigation on the said case.

The prosecution case is fairly straight forward. The first prosecution witness, Noah Teuna, who was in January of 1992, acting Head of the Criminal Investigation Division, (CID) stated that on or about the 2nd of January 1992, he received a letter dated the 20th December 1991, addressed to the Head of CID and purported to be sent by a person by the name of Patrick Legumana. That letter is marked exhibit 1 for identification. The letter was not signed, but had instead the name of Patrick Legumana printed as the writer.

The contents of that letter in essence requested that the criminal case of forgery reported by Patrick Legumana against the accused was to be withdrawn. That letter was copied to the Principal Magistrate Central and Mr Kelly Wanefiolo, who I presume is a prosecuting Officer from the Police.

On or about the 3rd of January 1992, Mr N. Teuna wrote a reply to that letter addressed to Mr Patrick Legumana and explaining very clearly to him that the Police do not have authority to close cases other than the court.

On or about the 5th of January 1992, the real Patrick Legumana wrote a reply to that letter of the 3rd January 1992 and stated as follows:

“Refer to letter dated 20/12 / 91 copies to Principal Magistrate and Wanefiolo. I must confirm in writing that I did not write the said letter. I did not discause (sic) the writing of letter with William Havilegu. I do not intend to withdraw the case that William Havilegu himself could have written a letter.”

Patrick Legumana was called by the prosecution to give evidence under oath. His evidence is fairly straight forward. He admitted that the accused spoke to him about the case not long after it was reported. He however denied consenting to the accused writing a letter of withdrawal on his behalf. He emphatically stated that he did not intend to withdraw the case and that was why he never wrote any letters to the Head of CID for any withdrawals of his case. This would be consistent with his reply to the Head of CID in the letter dated 5th January 1992.

On or about the 16th of April 1992 a letter was written by the accused to Patrick Legumana asking him to copy-write a letter which was attached and addressed to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That letter to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was to seek withdrawal of the case against the accused.

In his evidence before this court, Patrick Legumana stated that although he had received the letter, he did not intend to withdraw the case, and so did not do as was requested. He also stated that he was frightened that if he withdrew the case that there may be repercussions against him.

On or about the 21st of April 1992, a second letter was written by the accused and sent to Patrick Legumana. Again, Patrick Legumana did not do as requested.

In his defence, the accused stated that he wrote the letter dated 20/12/91 (marked as Exhibit 1) and sent it off to the Head of CID because he was under the impression that Patrick Legumana had consented to the withdrawal of the case. This he says was the view he had from the discussion he had had with Patrick Legumana not long after the case was reported.

This case turns in essence on the point as to who the Court believes. Without much hesitation I am unable to satisfy myself that the Accused’s version can be relied on.

The obvious anomaly in the accused’s explanations is the letters of the 16th of April 1992 and the 21st of April 1992. If what the accused alleges in his evidence under oath before this court is true, that he was given the authority to write the letter of the 20th December 1991, then why would he go begging in his letters of the 16th and the 20th April to Patrick Legumana to write a letter of withdrawal to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The evidence of Patrick Legumana has been consistent all the way through. Even before this court, he made it very clear that he had no intention to withdraw the case and did not give any indication to the accused that that was what he intended to do. I must reject the explanation of the accused and accept the evidence of Patrick Legumana as correct and truthful.

I do note that Patrick Legumana did say that he was frightened of complying with the request of the accused because he may in turn cause problems with the courts or the police. However, I am not satisfied that that fear was the sole reason why he did not withdraw the case. It is clear to me that his intention was not to withdraw the case and to proceed with it, but that the fear expressed in respect of the request of the accused to withdraw the case was beside the point. It seemed to be extraneous to what his real intentions were. What is noticeable is that given the opportunity to express his views and intentions very clearly before this Court, he remained firm that there was no intention to withdraw the case.

Was the accused aware then that on the 20/12/91, Patrick Legumana had no intention to withdraw his case? I am satisfied that was crystal clear. The evidence before me showed that there was little evidence apart from the discussion held not long after the report was made to the police to support the explanation of the accused.

If the accused was genuine then he should have written the letter himself, signed it and then copy it to Patrick Legumana with the request that Patrick Legumana confirms to the Head of CID what he had just written. I am not satisfied that the accused’s actions were genuine, especially when the letter of the 20/12/91 was purported to be written by Patrick Legumana. He says that he gave a copy of the letter to Patrick Legumana. This was not put to Patrick Legumana in cross-examination.

The evidence of Patrick Legumana however is very clear. There is no evidence that a copy was received. And in the letter of the 5th January 1992, he expressed surprise that a letter of withdrawal had been written to the Head of CID, which was purported to have been written by him.

I am satisfied prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is convicted of this charge.

(A.R. Palmer)
JUDGE