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

Baega v Regina [2001] SBHC 103; HC-CRAC 028 of 2001 (28 March 2001)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NUMBER 028 OF 2001

PATRICK BAEGA

-V-

REGINA

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER J.)

HEARING: 28TH MARCH 2001
RULING: 28TH MARCH 2001

Ms M Samuels for the Applicant/Appellant
J. Faga for the Respondent/Crown

PALMER J.: This was an application for bail by the Applicant, Patrick Baega under section 290(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”). The Applicant applies for bail pending hearing and determination of his appeal. In the alternative, that his hearing be listed as soon as possible. Section 290(1) gives power to this Court to grant bail “. . . if in the circumstances of the case it thinks fit. . . .”.

I heard the application on 28th March 2001, and denied bail. I wasn’t going to publish reasons but on second thoughts have decided to do so for benefit of Counsels and others. The ground relied on is more or less contained in the affidavit in support of Jeremy Rua, filed 8th March 2001. I quote:

(Paragraphs 4-5)

“When he (Patrick Baega) was arrested, charged, brought before the Court (Magistrates’ Court) and eventually sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, the former members of MEF were very adamant on taking the law into their own hands.

As former Supreme Commander, I am aware of the likelihood of the above.”

(Paragraphs 7-8)

“If it was not for my immediate intervention something drastic could have happened then. I am trying to do all I could to control the actions of the former members of MEF. I am of the view that I would not be able to do that for a longer period of time if the Courts do not intervene to hear and decide on the Appellant’s case.

I also have information to the effect that if nothing is soon forthcoming pertaining to the Appellant’s case then I could not say what the former members would do next. All that I say is that I would not be in a position to control their actions and that would not be in the best interest of everybody concerned.”

What can be gleaned from the affidavit of Jeremy Rua, filed 8th March 2001, was the fear or concern it seems, of possible violence or unlawful action being taken by colleagues of the prisoner, who were also former members of Malaita Eagle Force (“MEF”). Jeremy Rua was a former Supreme Commander of MEF. Those “threats” of possible violence or unlawful action stem from the preconception that the prisoner ought to be released, in spite of having been duly processed under the criminal law of this nation. That is with respect a dangerous and irresponsible stance to take.

At the hearing I pointed out to Counsel for the Appellant that such matters could never be the basis for granting bail. I also pointed out to Counsel that the application was unusual for those reasons. Learned Counsel conceded, but pointed out that she was only carrying out instructions. I accepted her explanation pointing out that I would not have expected such application to have been made by Counsel, but for, the unusual and unfortunate circumstances this country had come through, in the last two or so years and the deteriorating state of law and order in the country. This Court took judicial notice of the fact that up until very recently, in the last two or three months, there had been virtually no effective Police and Prison Force in the country. This Court recognizes, that had law and order not been restored to what it is this far, by the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (“the Police Force”), perhaps this Court may have been obliged in the interest of public safety and security, to consider such concerns. But that is no longer the case. Law and order is slowly but steadily, being restored by the Police Force. The Police and Prison Service are getting their act together, and they must do so, for the sake of restoration of law and order in the country. Any concerns of possible threats of violence and unlawful activities therefore, are primarily matters for the Police Force, as the legitimate body mandated by the laws of this country, to deal with, and should be directed to them. I have actually done that in this case, by requiring the Registrar to hand over copies of the affidavit of Jeremy Rua to the Commissioner of Police for his attention.

I note also that the concerns deposed to, stem from the preconception that the sentence imposed was wrong, due to certain matters not brought to the attention of the court of first instance. The assumption is that had those matters been brought to the attention of the court of first instance, the sentence imposed would have been different. Respectfully however, those are matters which can be addressed in the hearing proper of the appeal, and if found in favour of the prisoner, appropriate orders can be made.

I am not satisfied it had been shown to my satisfaction that this is one of those circumstances in which this Court thinks it fit to grant bail under section 290(1) of the CPC. Bail denied. Direct that the appeal be listed for hearing for Friday 30th March 2001 at 9.30 am.

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

1. Bail refused.
   
2. Appeal to be listed for hearing for 30th March 2001 at 9.30 am.
   

THE COURT.