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

  Download original PDF

Pese v Regina [2007] SBHC 83; HCSI No 594 2005 (20 April 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 594 of 2005

MATHIAS PESE

-v-

REGINA

(Mwanesalua, J.)

Hearing: 19 April 2007
Ruling: 20 April 2007

Ms. Ruschena for the crown
Mr. Anders for the Applicant

RULING

Mwanesalua, J: This is an application for bail. The Applicant is Mathias Pese. He was committed for trial to the High Court on 24 November 2005 on one count of Murder and one count of abduction. He has been remanded at Rove Prison pending his trial before the High Court. His previous bail application was refused. He now brings in this fresh application for bail.

His present application is based on the grounds that he has been in custody for twenty months; that the evidence against him is weak; that he is a young person; and that he should be released on bail so that he can be readily available to prepare his defence with his advocate. The Crown opposes the application on the basis that the offences against him are serious; that the delay of the trial was not unreasonable; and that there is insufficient evidence to support the application.

The Applicant has been charged with offences under the Penal Code (Cap.20). The offence of murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment whilst the offence of abduction carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. It is therefore clear that the offences laid against the Applicant in the information before this court are very serious.

The Applicant allegedly committed his offences on 8 April 2003 and was arrested by the Police on 26 August 2005. He appeared before the Magistrates' Court on 24 November 2005 and committed for trial to the High Court. His trial has commenced and will resume on 24 April 2007. There was delay of less than 20 months in his trial. In the view of this court, this period of delay was not unreasonable in view of the backlog of cases pending trial before the High Court.

There is evidence that the Applicant was one of the GLF members who captured the victim is this case. Further, there is evidence that the Applicant was one of the four men who had beaten the victim to death with sticks and buried his body in a grave. The decision on whether the evidence against the Applicant is flawed is to be made by the court after the trial.

The exact date of the Applicant's birth is not known. However, there is evidence in the affidavit of the Applicant which suggested that he was nineteen years old in 2006. A "young person" mans a person who is fourteen years of age or upwards and under the age of eighteen years.¹. He is therefore not a young person and was remanded in custody at the Rove Prison by the Magistrates' Court which committed him to stand trial at the High Court.

It is not the law in this jurisdiction that remandees must be released on bail to prepare their defences with their advocates. Defence advocates do have access to their clients whilst on remand at the Rove Prison. The Applicant now has more access to his advocate since his trial has begun. He can continue to discuss any matter regarding his defence with his advocate when he comes to court. There is no evidence to suggest that his advocate was not permitted by the Prison authorities to get instructions from him before this trial began.

The health and welfare of remandees awaiting trial at the Rove Prison are matters to be addressed by the Prison Authorities posted there. They are the ones who can properly assess the health and the welfare of remandees and take appropriate measures to address them. It is no function of this court to do that in this bail application.

The hardship faced by the wife, child and relatives as a result of the Applicant's remand was already put to the court which refused the Applicant's previous bail application on 12 May 2006.

This court has considered the evidence in support of this present application carefully. The court is not sure that the persons who support his application would ensure that the Applicant would abide by bail conditions to attend his trial. He has no one to live with in Honiara if he were to be released on bail.

This court has considered all the points advanced on his behalf by his advocate. In the opinion of this court there is no exceptional circumstances to grant bail to the Applicant.²

The Application is refused.

Francis Mwanesalua
Puisne Judge

Endnotes
¹ S.8 of the Juvenile Offenders Act (Cap. 14)
² See R-v-Kong Ming Koo unrptd Crim Case under 1991 per Ward CJ.