Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Vanuatu Law Reports

Public Prosecutor v Sope (No. 1) [1988] VULawRp 18; [1980-1994] Van LR 396 (21 December 1988)

[1980-1994] Van LR 396

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 9 of 1988 (No 1)

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

v

BARAK SOPE
MAXIME CARLOT
JOHN NAUPA
FRANK SPOONER
WILLIE JIMMY

[No. 1]

Coram: Chief Justice Cooke
Mr J Baxter Wright, public prosecutor
Mr D Hudson for defendants

JUDGMENT

[CRIMINAL LAW - bail application]

On the 21st December 1988, Mr Hudson, on behalf of his clients, the accused Barak Sope, Maxime Carlot, John Naupa, Frank Spooner and Willie Jimmy who are charged with the following:

1. That Barak Sope, Maxime Carlot, John Naupa, Frank Spooner and Willie Jimmy, sometime on Sunday 18th December 1988, at Vila, did take an oath to engage in a mutinous or seditious enterprise, contrary to Section 5 (1) (b) of the Public Order Act No. 11 of 1974, and
2. The same said persons sometime on Sunday 18th December 1988, at Vila, did make a statement expressing a seditious intention, contrary to Section 65 (1) of the Penal Code.

appealed to the Supreme Court against a refusal of bail to them by the learned Senior Magistrate.

Mr Hudson based his argument on the fact that the accused were prepared to abide by any conditions the Court wished to impose upon them.

I heard the Public Prosecutor also who informed me that it would be extremely difficult for the police to contain security as tension was running high in Port Vila.

I did some research of cases on this matter and consider the propositions laid down by Coleridge J in Re Robinson (1854) 23 LJ QB at page 236. They are three as follows:

1. What is the nature of the crime? Is it grave or trifling?
2. What is the probability of a conviction?

What is the nature of the evidence to be offered by the Prosecution?

3. Is the man liable to a severe punishment?

Considering the proposition, I am satisfied the crime is grave, that there is a probability of a conviction and that the accused are liable to severe punishment.

That being the case, I am of the opinion that it would be wrong of a Court to grant bail. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal of the accused.

21 December 1988

FREDERICK G. COOKE
CHIEF JUSTICE