Warren v The State [2003] PGSC 22; SC725 (17 December 2003)

SC725

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SC Appl No: 13 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

ROBIN WARREN & FOUR OTHERS
Applicants

AND:

THE STATE
Respondent

Waigani : Jalina, J

2003. : 9th & 17th December
      

CRIMINAL LAW – Practice and Procedure – Bail Application following conviction and sentence by National Court – Application pending determination of appeal to Supreme Court – Fresh Evidence - Need to show exceptional circumstances – Good prospect of success of appeal as exceptional circumstance– Bail Act (Ch. 340) s. 11

Cases cited:
Bola Renagi & 2 Ors v. The State [2000] SC649
Rolf Schubert v. The State [1978] PNGLR 394
Arthur Smedley v. The State [1978] PNGLR 452
John Beng v. The State [1982] PNGLR 331
R v. Parkes (1962) 46 Cr. App. R 29
Abiari –v- The State [1990] PNGLR 250
Mai Kuri –v- The State (No. 2) [1991] PNGLR 311
Pari –v- The State [1993] PNGLR 173

Counsel:
B. Narokobi for the Applicants
P. Kaluwin for the Respondent

17th December, 2003

JALINA, J: The Applicants were convicted and sentenced by the National Court sitting in Wewak on 22 counts of arson and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. They have appealed to the Supreme Court against both their conviction and sentence. They make this application pursuant to s. 11 of the Bail Act. I as a single judge of the Supreme Court have powers conferred upon me by s. 10 (1) (c) of the Supreme Court Act to hear this application.

Principles of Law

At the commencement of his written submissions Mr Narakobi says that this application was based on both s. 11 of the Bail Act and s. 42 (6) of the Constitution. Section 11 of the Bail Act gives a person the right to apply for bail pending appeal which is not an issue here as the Applicants have not been denied their right to apply for bail. Section 42 (6) of the Constitution of course deals with a person's right to bail. It should however be noted that the right to bail pursuant to that section only arises prior to conviction as the presumption of innocence still prevails but after conviction there is no right to bail. This is on the presumption that guilt has been established through what might be taken to be a properly conducted trial with no error of law unless the contrary is shown. Applications made after conviction are therefore rare and if and when they are made it is viewed with great care and reticence by the courts.

The courts are however vested with wide discretion in the exercise of this power. In the exercise of this discretionary power whether or not to grant bail following conviction, "exceptional circumstances" must be shown.

What may amount to "exceptional circumstances" must be determined from the whole of the circumstances of a particular case. The onus is upon the applicant(s) to demonstrate that there are factors which constitute "exceptional circumstances" to satisfy the court that bail should be granted. This is clear from two cases which have been followed in a number of cases including Bola Renagi & 2 Ors v. The State [2000] SC649. Those two cases are Rolf Schubert v. The State [1978] PNGLR 394 and Arthur Smedley v. The State [1978] PNGLR 452. In Shubert's case Raine Dep. CJ made this observation at 397:

"Mr. Griffin also relies upon the fact that there is a reasonable probability that the appeal could succeed. ... It is not for me to make up my mind at this point of time about the chances of the appeal. It would be wrong to do so in the absence of full argument. ...However, ...l I say, tentatively only, that the appeal does not look a very easy one to me, and I am not of opinion that the chances of success are so great that exceptional circumstances favourable to the applicant are constituted."

In Smedley's case, Wilson, J said at 454:

"The principal reason relied upon by Mr. Kendell in making this application was that, prima facie, the grounds of appeal are of an arguable nature. Assuming arguendo that, prima facie, the grounds of appeal in this case are of such a nature, I am not persuaded by the authority of Ilete’s case nor any other authority that that of itself constitutes an "exceptional circumstance". That circumstance does not of itself immediately conjure up in my mind the idea of something exceptional."

The main premise upon which the application is made is that "exceptional circumstances" exist to warrant granting of bail pending appeal. Mr Narokobi for the Applicants relies on a number of grounds as constituting "exceptional circumstances". These grounds are:

1. There are good prospects that the appeal will succeed.
2. There was fresh evidence from the actual perpetrators of the crime which exonerates the Applicants.
3. The Applicant Robin Warren was never committed for trial but was indicted with 21 counts of arson.
4. The Applicant A.V Pokapin was committed for trial for breaching a law that did not exist.
5. The constitutional presumption of innocence was misapplied.
   

Reasonable Likelihood of Success as Constituting Exceptional Circumstances

I now deal with the grounds relied upon by the Applicants as constituting "exceptional circumstances". From the 5 grounds, I reject grounds 3 and 4 as they relate to the validity of the committal process before the District Court. Issues affecting the validity of the committal process before the District Court should have been challenged and argued either before the trial judge prior to commencement of trial or through a separate proceedings seeking declaratory orders.

I also reject ground No. 5 as it is a matter that can be argued on appeal. In any event, I am unable to verify how it is alleged that the trial judge misapplied the Constitutional presumption of innocence without the benefit of the transcript of proceedings in the National Court. That leaves grounds 1 and 2. Ground 1 deals with the prospect of success of the appeal. Ground 2 deals with "fresh" evidence. Since ground 1 (prospect of success) is dependent on fresh evidence being allowed under ground 2, I propose to consider them together.

The "fresh" evidence relied upon by the Applicants are contained in a number of "confessional" statements by persons who claim to be the actual perpetrators of the crime of arson. Those persons are Martin Ipma, Robin Huranangu and Daniel Huranangu together with a statement from one Tom Famiamba, the Councillor for Ward 27 within the Taranga Local Level Government area near Wewak. Their Statements are all annexures to their respective affidavits which have been filed herein.

Their pidgin Statements have been translated into English but since the English translation contains typographical errors, I propose to use the pidgin version in this judgment.

The Statement of Martin Ipma from Taranga No. 2 Village, was in the following terms".

"Neim na address bilong mi i stap antap na mi ken tingim igo bek long Monday 24th September 2001. taim em long 3:30 am long moning taim mi slip long haus na mi harim mama ikam bek long haus sik (BORAM GENERAL HOSPITAL) na em krai na singaut olsem, "Wendy Huranangu susa bilong yupela i dai pinis na bodi bilong em istap long mog, em ol Koiruo i kilim em i dai."

Odilia Urayua, John Jayare, Ronald Jayare, Brain Feringue, Nancy Hasaiho, Annast Hahuria na Felixtasia Yuahunia i bin kamapim idai bilong Wendy Huranangu.

Mi kirap long bedslip bilong mi na kamausait na mi lukim Robin Huranangu, Daniel Huranangu, Chalie Hano, John Hano na mipela 5pela stret ol brata blong Wendy Huranangu igo daun long Koiruo Camp long Yawasoro na kukum haus bilong ol.

Taim paia igo antap long haus mipela 5pela I ronowe ikam ausait long rot na semtaim polis i kamap na open faia long gun na mi lukim ol manmeri na pikinini ol i kam long lukim women samting i kamap. Planti bilong ol manmeri mi gat save long ol tu i kam long lukim women samting i kamap pinis long em.

Taim mi lukim olsem mi go bek long haus (Wom Junction) Bihain long dispela Polis i painim aut wonem man i kukim haus na mipela 5pela brata i tokaut long Komiuniti olsem mipela i kukim haus bilong ol Koiruo pipel.

Ward member Tom Fimaimbai i kisim mipela 5pela brata stret igo long Polis Stesin na C.I.D. Polis i rausim mipela 5pela igo beck long Wom Junction wantaim councilor Tom Fimamba.

Em tasol mi gat save na mi ken tokim."

The Statement of Daniel Huranangu, from Taranga Village, Wom Junction, Wewak is in the following terms:

"Mi yet Daniel Huranangu mi yet iken tingim igo bek long 24th September, 2001 em Odilia wantaim ol lain brata ilong em i bin sutim susa bilong mi Wendy Huranangu long knife na em i bin indai.

So long indai bilong susa bilong mi, mi yet Daniel Huranangu wantaim ol 5 pela brata bilong mi mipela igo daun long Koiruo Camp na lukim olsem inogat wanpela man istap we mipela i belhat na i laik bekim back long indai bilong susa bilong mipela na long dispela has tasol na mi yet wantaim ol 5 pela brata bilong mi (Robin Huranangu, Martin Ipma, Charlie Hano na John Hano) mipela i kukim ol haus long Koiruo Camp long dispela day. Taim mipela i kukim ol haus pinis na ikam autsait lusim ples we ol haus i paia long en Polis Kart i ibin kamap long dispela morning taim tu, na mipela i lusim olgeta samting mipela i holim i stap long em na ol police itokim mipela long lusim dispela hap na igo ikam.

Taim dispela trabel i kamap pinis mi yet wantaim Councillor Tom Fimaimba i bin go kamap long Police Station long Wednesday 26th September, 2001 bihainim toksave bilong PPC (Leo Kabilo) long Councillor na tokaut olsem mi yet wantaim ol 5pela brata bilong mi i kukim ol dispela haus tasol ol C.I.D. police ino kotim mi na ol i lusim mi igo bek wantaim Councillor Tom Fimaimba long haus bilong mipela long Wom Junction na ol C.I.D. Police igo het na sasim nating ol narapela innocent 5pela man nating husait ino bin mekim dispela trabel long Koirua Camp na tu kalabusim ol nating.

Mi yet Daniel Huranangu i stap na mi lukim olsem ino stret nogut bai ol dispela innocent lain man i kisim nating dispela hevi or panismen bilong mi olsem na mi yet i kamap long han bilong Loya (Public Solicitor) na mi bin tokaut olsem mi yet mi has bilong dispela travel wei long dispela taim Councillor Tom Fimaimba i bin kisim mi go antap na givim mi igo long han bilong of C.I.D. Polis tasol ol dispela C.I.D. Polis i tok nogat long mi yet na mipela igo bek long haus bilong mipela.

Dispela C.I.D Polisman husait i rausim Councillor Tom Fimaimba wantaim mi yet em Sam Akike.

Long dispela tasol na mi yet i filim olsem ino gutpela na ino stret olsem na mi yet kamap ken long givim dispela tok tru bilong mi.

Em tasol ol toktok mi gat long mekim bihainim dispela trabel blong ol haus i paia long Koiruo Camp dispela day Monday 24th September, 2001. DANIEL HURANANGU"

The Statement of Robin Huranangu from Taranga Village near Wom Junction, Wewak is in the following terms.

"Neim na address bilong mi istap antap na mi ken tingim igo long Monday 24th September long 2001, taim em long 4:30am mi kirap long bed na mi harim mama i singaut olsem, "Wendy Huranangu i dai pinis na body bilong em istap long mog." "Ol Koiruo i kilim em idai."

Odilia Urayua, Nancy Asaiho, Annastasia Hahuria, Felixtasia Yuahunia, John Jayare, Ronald Jayare na Brian Feringue. Ol i bin kilim Wendy Huranangu idai.

Taim mi harim singaut bilong mama mi kam ausait na go lukim Martin Ipmampuke, Daniel Huranangu, Charlie Hano na John Hano. Mipela 5pela stret ol brata bilong Wendy Huranangu i belhat na igo daun long Koiruo Camp long Yawasoro na lukim ol Koiruo pipel ino stap long women ol I ronowe pinis. Olsem na mipela i putim paia long haus bilong ol.

Taim paia igo antap mipela 5pela ol brata bilong Wendy Huranangu i ronowe ikam ausait long rot. Bihain long sampela minit igo pinis na ol Polis ikam kamap na lukim olsem ol haus i paia pinis. Taim ol polis i weit long kisim ol ripot o stori na planti manmeri tu ol i kamap long dispela taim. Planti bilong ol manmeri mi igat save long ol tu i kamap bihain long lukim wonem samting i kamap pinis, long em.

Taim mipela i lukim olsem ol planti manmeri i kamap long luksave long wonem samting i bin kamap, mipela 5pela brata bilong Wendy Huranangu igo stap long Wom Junction na polis i painim aut long husait tru i bin kukim ol haus. Mipela i bin tokaut long Komiuniti olsem, mipela ol 5pela brata bilong Wendy Huranangu i kukim ol haus long Koiruo camp.

Lida bilong Komiuniti, councilor Tom fimaimba i kisim mipela igo antap long Polis stesin na ol C.I.D polis i rausim mipela na mipela i kam bek wantaim councillor na stap bek long Para Camp long Wom Junction.

Em tasol ol toktok bilong mi.

Mi Robin Huranangu."

The Statement of Tom Famiamba, Ward Councillor, Ward 27 in the Wewak Local Level Government area is in the following terms:

"Nem bilong mi em Tom Famiamba na mi blong ples Tangara insait long Wewak District, East Sepik Province.

Mi bin stap olsem Councillor blong Ward 27 long Tangara LLG Ward Ared long yia 2001.

Insait long Monday 24th September, 2001 long 5 kilok (5:00am) morning mi harim pairap blong mambu (Bamboo) long ol haus ibim paia.

Mi lusim haus bilong mi na wokabaut igo autsait long road na igo daun long Wom Junction, West Coast Raod igo olsem long Wewak Taun sait.

Taim mi kamap long Wom Junction Area igat planti lain ol manmeri istap pinis. Mi sanap wantaim ol na mipela lukluk igo antap long skai isoim mak or sain bilong paia inap emi tulait olgeta long dispela morning. Long hap past six (6:30am) mi lukim Andrew Undogu Pokapin ikam lusim mipela na igo long lukim haus ipaia long em. Bihain liklik mipela ipusim kar bilong John Nakon Kebsy em wanpela Nissan Dabol Cab Registration Namba WAB 414, Yellow Kala. Long taim olsem kuota to seen (6:45am) long dispela morning taim yet em Paul Borei ikalap na tupela John Nakon Kebsy draiv igo long Moem Barracks long toksave long ol Bossman bilong em long PNGDF Moem Barracks olsem em yet John Nakon Kebsy bai ino inap kamap long wok bikos igat wanpela indai imakap long hauslain banis bilong em yet we wanpela meri Wendy ibin dai. Bihain liklik long ten minits to seven (6:50am) long dispela morning yet mi lukim Aron Kofa iholim han bilong pikinini blong em na wokabaut ikam daun long Wom Junction Road wantaim meri bilong em na bihainim em long baksait em. Branson Kofa wantaim ol planti narapela pipel igo long lukim haus i paia long em.

Mipela planti pipel istap yet long Wom Junction road na long hap past 7 (7:30am) long dispela morning igo long 8 kilok (8:00am) Francis Warren itokim Robin Warren long draivim kar bilong em long go lukim ol haus ipaia long em bikos leg bilong Francis ibis solap nogut tru olsem na em yet (Francis Warren) ino inap long draiv so brata bilong em. Robin Warren idraivim kar bilong em Registration namba WAB 374 Toyota LandCrusa na greenpela kala wantaim sampela lain famili membas antap long kar na oli go olsem long Wewak taun sait.

Taim mi stap yet wantaim ol pipel bilong mi long Wom Junction Area na long 9 kilok em dead body bilong Wendy Uranangu oli bringim kam kamap long haus lain banis bilong John Nakson Kebsy na ol pipel long community igo bung long haus krai na sori long dead body bilong dispela yangpela meri, Wendy Uranangu bilong ples Para insait long Kubalia Sub-District long East Sepik Province husait em wanpela narapela yangpela meri oli kolim nem blong em olsem Odilia Uraiwa blong Koiruo Camp long Yawasoro Settlement Area insait long Wewak, East Sepik Province ibin sutim em long knife long Wom Junction Area long Sunday, 23rd September, 2001 na em (Wendy Uranangu) ibin dai taim oli bringim em igo long Boram Haus Sik long kisim helpim.

Long dispela taim yet olsem sampela minit i abrusim 9 kilok em PPC (Leo Kabilo) wantaim ol planti Polisman na ol C.I.D Polis tu ol ikamap long Wom Junction Area na PPC (Leo Kabilo) yet i singaut long hela microphone na tokim ol manmeri i bung long hauskrai olsem ol noken karai yet istap bai em yet PPC (Leo Kabilo) i kukim haus krai wantaim haus bilong John Nakson Kebsy wantaim dead body bilong Wendy Uranangu istap long em.

Long Tuesday 25th September, 2001 em PPC (Leo Kabilo) yet ikam kamap ken long mi na tokim mi olsem bai mi mas kisim dispela ol man husait ibin kukim haus long Koiruo Camp long Yawasoro Settlement igo long Polis Station.

So mi bungim ol pipel bihainim toksave blong PPC (Leo Kabilo) yet long sem day Tuesday 25th, September 2001 na askim long painim aut husait ol man tru ibin kukim haus long Koiruo Camp na semtaim Daniel Uranangu em yet itok aut long mi olsem Councillor bilong Ward 27 olsem emi wari long susa bilong em Wendy Uranangu husait ibin dai taim narapela meri Odilia Uraiwa long Koiruo camp long Yawasoro Settlement ibin sutim emi dai long knife olsem na long dispela as tasol na em yet (Daniel Uranangu) ibin go pas na ol narapela brata bilong emi bihainim emi go daun long Koiruo Camp long Yawasoro Settlement na oli kukim haus daun.

Long Wednesday 26th September, 2001 mi bihainim ken toksave bilong PPC (Leo Kabilo) na mi kisim Daniel Uranangu yet wantaim ol narapela igo long Polis Station na mi toksave long C.I.D office na O.I.C blong C.I.D Alphonse Vokone wantaim Samuel Akike na ol narapela Polisman long Wewak Police Station na ol I rausim mi wantaim Daniel Uranangu na ol arapela husait ibin kukim ol haus long Koirup Camp na mipela ikam bek long haus bilong mipela na bihain ol C.I.D ikisim nating ol narapela faivpela innocent man nating em Robin Warren, John Nakon Kebsy, Aron Kofa, Branson Kofa na Andrew Undogu Pokapin na chargim ol nating na tokim Court olsem ol yet wanwan ibin kukim ol dispela haus na ol arapela samting long Koiruo Camp taim longwe blong wanwan hapless bilong ol dispela 5pela innocent man ino stap klostu long wanpela na narapela na tu long hapless bilong brata bilong dai meri Wendy Uranangu na Daniel Uranangu yet.

Mi ai witness long ol dispela 5pela innocent man em Robin Warren, John Nakon Kebsy, Aron Kofa, Branson Kofa na Andrew Undogu Pokapin na mi tok tru olsem ol dispela 5pela man I karim nating dispela hevi long wrong na trouble blong kukim ol haus (Arson) we ol yet wanwan ino bin mekim dispela samting tasol ol narapela trouble man tru tru ibin mekim we mi yet olsem Councillor ibin kisim trouble man stret igo long polis station bihainim toksave blong PPC (Leo Kabilo) tasol ol C.I.D polis ino bin laik harim gut long mi pastaim tasol oli stong tumas na rausim mi na mi kisim ol dispela trouble man stret blong kukim haus (Arsonists) ikam bek long haus na ol C.I.D polis ikotim na kalabusim nating ol dispela innocent man nau istap insait long Boram C.I.S.

Em tasol ol toktok bilong mi."

Fresh Evidence

The power of the Supreme Court to allow "fresh" evidence is derived from s. 6 of the Supreme Court Act (Ch. No. 37). It has supplementary powers under s. 8 of the Act. Section 8 is a machinery provision to implement or give effect to the powers granted under s. 6 of the Act. Section 6 provides:

"6. Appeal to be by way of rehearing.

(1) An appeal to the Supreme Court shall be by way of rehearing on the evidence given in the court from the decision of which is appealed against, subject to the right of the Supreme Court –

• (a) to allow fresh evidence to be adduced where it is satisfied that the justice of the case warrants it; and
• (b) to draw inferences of fact.
  

(2) For the purpose of hearing and determining the appeal, the Supreme Court has all the powers, authority and jurisdiction of a judge exercising the jurisdiction of the National Court."

Section 8 of the Act provides:

"8. Supplemental powers of Supreme Court.

(1) For purposes of this Act, The Supreme Court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interest of justice to do so –

• (a) order the production of any document, exhibit or other thing connected with the proceedings the production of which appears to it necessary for the determination of the case; and
• (b) order any persons who would have been compellable witnesses at the trial to attend and be examined before the Court, whether or not they were called at the trial, or order any such person to be examined on oath before –
  
  • (i) a Judge of the National Court;
  • (ii) an officer of the Supreme Court;
  • (iii) a magistrate of a court of summary jurisdiction; or
  • (iv) any other person appointed by the Court for the purpose.
    
• (c) receive the evidence, if tendered, of any witness (including the appellant) who is a competent but not a compellable witness, and, if the appellant consents, of the husband or wife of the appellant in cases where the evidence of the husband or wife could have been given at the trial except with that consent; and
  
• (d) where any question arising on appeal involves, prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation that cannot, in the opinion of the court, conveniently be conducted before the court – order the reference of the question for inquiry and report, in accordance with Part iv; by a referee appointed by the court and act on the report of the referee so far as it thinks fit to adopt it; and
  
• (e) exercise in relation to the proceedings of the court any other powers that may for the time being be exercised by the National Court as appeals or applications; and
  
• (f) issue any warrants necessary for enforcing the orders or sentences of the court.
  

(2) The Supreme Court shall not increase a sentence in a criminal proceeding by reason or in consideration of any evidence given under Subsection (1)."

What constitutes "fresh" evidence under s. 6 (1) (a) of the Supreme Court Act has been a subject of judicial interpretation in a number of cases. For instance, in John Beng v. The State [1982] PNGLR 331 the Supreme Court unanimously held that "fresh" evidence for purposes of s. 6 (1) (a) is new evidence that is relevant, credible, admissible according to the rules of evidence and of such a character that combined with the evidence already given at the trial the result in the minds of reasonable men ought to be affected.

The Court appears to have followed at 335 the English case of R v. Parkes (1962) 46 Cr. App. R 29 where the Court of Criminal Appeal said at 32:

"First, the evidence that is sought to call must be evidence which was not available at the trial. Secondly, and this goes without saying, it must be evidence relevant to the issues. Thirdly, it must be evidence which is credible evidence in the sense that it is well capable of belief, it is not for this court to decide if it is to be believed or not, but evidence which is capable of belief. Fourthly, the court will, after considering that evidence, go on to consider whether there might have been a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to the guilt of the appellant if that evidence had been given together with the other evidence at trial."

The Court went on to say that the above principles have been accepted as part of the law in Papua New Guinea since independence. The Court further said at 337:

"We are therefore of the opinion that s. 6 (1) (a) has been correctly invoked by the State in this application. If a party can show, that the evidence is "fresh" in the accepted judicial interpretation that it is relevant, credible, admissible according to the rules of evidence, and by it a reasonable man would be given cause to doubt, then a proper case exists where the court can exercise its discretion to admit it."

The above passages were cited by Amet .J (as he then was) in his dissenting judgment in Abiari –v- The State [1990] PNGLR 250 at 262 – 263. The dissenting judgment of Amet .J (as he then was) was of course endorsed by are very strong view of a five-member Supreme Court bench in Mai Kuri –v- The State (No. 2) [1991] PNGLR 311 at 313:

"We endorse, with respect, our brother Amet .J’s reasons in Abiari -v- The State and we reproduce His Honour’s reasons hereunder by way of endorsement and emphasis (at 265 – 267)."

In Pari -v- The State [1993] PNGLR 173 it was held that two requirements must be satisfied if "fresh" evidence is to be admitted on appeal. Firstly, there must be "fresh" evidence within the meaning of s. 6 (1) (a) of the Supreme Court Act Ch. 37, which means evidence which has come to light since the hearing or trial, or evidence which has come to the knowledge of the party applying since that hearing or trial which would not by reasonable means have come to his knowledge before that time.

Secondly, the Court must be satisfied that the justice of the case warrants admission of the evidence.

It therefore appears from the above decision that the first issue to be determined would be whether evidence is "fresh" evidence and that it has come to the knowledge of the party applying since the hearing or trial. Once it has been decided that the evidence is "fresh" evidence, then the question arises whether the justice of the case warrants its admission into evidence as it appears to cast doubt on the guilt or innocence of the accused by reason of such evidence.

So my task in the case before me is to determine whether the evidence that are contained in the confessional statement which I have reproduced above, are "fresh" evidence. Whether the justice of the case warrants its admission into evidence is a matter for argument before the full bench of the Supreme Court.

In the present case, there can be no doubt that the "fresh" evidence in the form of admissions by the actual perpetrators of the crime is relevant to the vital issue of identity or identification. Such evidence, when considered with the evidence of the only "eye witness" for the prosecution namely Freddy Kavi on the issue of identification, that a reasonable man would be given cause to doubt as to the involvement of the Applicants in the commission of the crime of arson.

It has been submitted by Mr. Kaluwin for the Respondent that the "fresh" evidence sought to be admitted were available at trial. But he has put nothing before me to support his contention. He has not even filed an affidavit from counsel who had carriage of the matter during trial. He has also not made available to this Court the transcript of the proceedings to show that such evidence was available during trial.

Also, this application together with the supporting affidavits which of course included the "confessional" statements as well the statement of Tom Famiamba the Ward Councillor of Taranga Local Level Government area who took the actual perpetrators to the Wewak Police Station, were served on the Public Prosecutors Office on 20th November 2003. That was almost three weeks prior to the hearing of this application yet no affidavit evidence has been filed from the police investigator in Wewak to rebut Tom Famiamba’s assertion.

In these circumstances I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Applicants. Furthermore, in the particular circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the likelihood of success on "fresh" evidence the nature of which relates to one of the essential elements of a crime, namely the identity of the offender, can constitute "exceptional circumstance" warranting the Court exercising its discretion in favour of grant of bail pending an appeal which I do in this case. I accordingly grant bail.

I will now hear arguments on conditions of bail.
_____________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the Applicants : Melanesian Lawyers
Lawyer for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor