HOURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Criminal Case No: 117 of 1999
class="Mso="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
REGINA
>
v
p class=lass="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
High Court of Solomon Islands
Before: Palmer.J.
Criminal Case No: 117 of 1999
Hearing: 30 April, 1999
Ru 30 April, 1999
<
Bail Application
p class="MsoNormal" style="yle="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
A. Radclyffe for the Applicant/Defendant
F. Mwanesalua (DPP) for the Crown
PALMER J.:
The accused, Dickson Maeni has been charged with the offence of murder under
section 200 of the Penal Code (Revised Edition
1996) for the killing of
Ishmael Panda. The incident occurred at Bungana Island during a police
operation to capture
a number of offenders, including the deceased,
suspected of having committed a number of serious offences it was when those
suspects had ran away from a shoot-out with the police at the seaside that
the accused together with others went after
the deceased and the other
suspects and resulted in the killing of the deceased. The accused was a
police officer up
until the time of investigations, when he was then
suspended from formal duties pending outcome of the investigations and now
this case.
It is correct that bail applications in murder charges are rarely given by
this Court. It is because the nature of the
charge and the severity, of the
punishment are very serious. But that does not mean that bail will not be
considered
or given. There have been a number of cases which fall within the
category of exceptional cases, in which bail has been granted.
The usual
considerations which this Court must take into account are; the possibility
of absconding and interference
with witnesses.
The major objection of the learned Director of Public Prosecutions is that
hat
of absconding. Especially he seeks to
highlight the home origins of this
accused and the experiences had in the past of a number of persons who have
escaped
and have proven very hard to re-capture.
ile that may be so on one hand, I have to take this accusedcused as he appears
before me in court and not allow those other
incidents to colour my judgment
on this important issue of bail.
It is my respectful view there are marked distinguishing features in this
his
case if one cares to analyse them in detail.
First, the accused before me is
a police officer, more correctly, was a police officer at the time of
commission of the
offence and therefore a man subject to discipline.
Secondly, he was involved in a high powered operation involving the use
of
weapons and having to deal with persons who most likely were armed and were
armed at the time of the incident. It
wasn�t a case where this accused had
gone out purposely at the outset to commit an offence. The charge of murder
arose
at the point of time the suspects and deceased were sighted and
engaged for purposes of capture. What happened at that critical
point of
time will be a matter for the trial Judge to determine whether the accused�s
actions amounted to murder or to
a lesser charge of manslaughter. I must
bear that crucial factor in mind when deciding on this application for bail.
Thirdly, I note the ances by defence counsel which the accused had
given aven and that he was not going to run away, but
is prepared to face up to
the charges drawn up against him. There is nothing at this stage that gives
me cause for concern
about the genuiness and sincerity of this assurance. He
has indicated place of residence and his willingness to abide by any
court
orders.
What is crucial is that if hall is granted Ieasonably satisfied the
e
accused will not abscond. Whilst I take note
of the concerns of the learned
DPP, I do not give them much weight when taking into account the
circumstances of this
accused which I have already adverted to. I am not
satisfied there is a real possibility that the accused will abscond merely
because he happens to come from that part of the country where there have
been instances of escape and difficulty in
recapture. The accused�s former
status and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence weigh
heavily in his
favour.
On the issue of interference of witnesses, that is a remote possibility.
Investigations have more or less been finalised
and also most of the
witnesses will be police officers in any event, apart from several civilian
witnesses from Gela.
As ade, the learned DPP referred to a prison escapee from the athe area
where this accused comes from who had not yet
been re-captured in support of
his submissions. That however must be balanced with the question whether any
attempts
have been made at all to have that escapee recaptured. If none or
far few attempts have been made, then of-course it will be
very difficult to
do so.
I
am satisfied this calls within the category of y of exceptional cases where
I am prepared to grant bail and will do
so on the following conditions:
ass="Mso="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: -34.9pt; margin-left: 70.9pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
. &bsp; A necogce of $1000 00 each each is entered into by two sureties
to ensure that accused appears in Court on
the date and time set for his
trial, failing which amount of the recognisance may be forfeited.
3.   &nbbp;&nAcp; ed resides wits with his family at Gilbert Camp and does not
leave Honiara.
lass=lass="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: -34.9pt; margin-left: 70.9pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
4. &nbs; &nbbsp;  ortsports to Naha Poli Police Station on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays
on or before 0900 hrs
until trial.
<
THE COURTCOURT
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1999/46.html
