Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Vanuatu

Public Prosecutor v Meltelili [2000] VUSC 68; Criminal Case No of 1999 (16 November 2000)

IN THE SUPCOURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

LAKATORO / MALEKULA

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. of 1999

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-VS-

: 1"> URBANO MELTELILI

Coram: Before Justice Oliver A. Saksak

lass="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Miss Wend Wendy Wanemay � Clerk

Inspector Wilson D. Garae for the Public Prosecutor

p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"m: 1"> Mr Kiel Loughman for the Defendant

JUDGMENT/p>

The defendant pleaded not-guilty to a charge of cont of court contrary to section 23 of the Courts Act [CAP.122] on 13^th November, 2000. Trial was adjourned to 16^th November, 2000. On this date the prosecutor calls evidence from only one witness. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

class="MsoBoMsoBodyText" align="left" style="text-align: left; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> At the end of the prosecution case, Mr Loughman makes a no-case ssion. He submits that on thon the face of the evidence adduced it was insufficient to show a prima facie case is made out against the defendant. I accept that submission.

On or about 5^th April 1993 the Court issued an Order paragraph 2 of which reads as follows:

�They are restrained fromring the disputed land here known as Kuich Hirang or g or the whole of the land, the subject-matter of dispute between the Melturnaim family and the Meltelili family (themselves) until further order�.

Urbano Meltelili was the First Defendant and a Pierrot Meltelili was the Second Defendant. The complainant here here was the plaintiff, the Melturnai family. In his evidence Mr Justin Melturnaim told the court that the defendant had breached the court order by entering and making copra and harvesting cocoa on the disputed land which he called �Vendir�. It is clear that the court order is not about a land known as �Vendir� but it concerns land known as �Kuich Hirang�. The witness did not produce any maps to show clearly the land in dispute. Further, much of his evidence was hearsay evidence.

class="MsoBoMsoBodyText" align="left" style="text-align: left; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> For these reasons I find there to be insufficient evidence to shprima facie case against thst the defendant. I therefore discharge the charge against the defendant.

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> DATED at Lakatoro this 16^th day of November, 2000.

BY THE C/span>

lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> R A. SAKSAK

Judge