R v Taisia [2004] SBCA 15; CA-CRAC 002 of 2002 (11 November 2004)

SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL

FILE NO/S: Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2002

PARTIES:

R

V

TAISIA, Karawaisi
(appellant)

CITATION: R v Taisia
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT: High Court at Honiara

DELIVERED ON: 11 November 2004
DELIVERED AT: Honiara
HEARING DATE: 10 November 2004

JUDGES: Lord Slynn President and Goldsbrough and Williams JJA

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal granted

2. Appeal dismissed

COUNSEL: K Anderson for the appellant
M McColm for the respondent

[1] THE COURT: This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of 18 April 2002 wherein the appellant was convicted of murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code (Cap 26).
[2] The case arose out of the death of Eddie Heddley Meschack in the early hours of 25 August 2001 from a stab wound. The deceased had been at a gathering at the house of Barnabas Paragu, at which gathering and following an evening meal, the assembled menfolk began to drink alcohol.
[3] As might be expected at such a gathering, it divided into two groups – the men consuming alcohol together both inside and outside of the house and the women together with the children remaining inside. Equally expectedly is that not everyone attending the gathering was there for all of the time. The deceased arrived some way into the gathering in the company of others after the drinking had begun.
[4] By the time of his arrival, the menfolk had already been both inside and outside of the house. A substantial amount of alcohol was consumed by a relatively small number of men and at least one prosecution witness admitted to being drunk.
[5] For the appellant it is contended that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence. It is conceded on the appellant’s part that no individual ground of the appeal itself is sufficient to support such a finding but that the cumulative effect does so.
[6] That leads us to consideration of the evidence.
[7] Evidence for the prosecution came principally from others who attended the gathering including Barnabas Paragu (PW2), Moses Koualisi (PW3), Miriam Moli – the wife of PW2 (PW4) and Rex Siama (PW6). Medical evidence was available from Dr Oberley (PW1) who performed the post mortem examination and produced his report to the court. (It should be noted that these PW numbers in this judgment are taken from the order in which they gave evidence at the trial, and may differ from the PW numbers referred to in the judgment appealed.)
[8] PW2 is the only prosecution witness to give evidence of the actual stabbing. PW4 was indoors. PW3 and PW6 gave evidence about the circumstances leading up to the stabbing but not of seeing the knife wound inflicted.
[9] The evidence of PW2 about the stabbing was clear and included a demonstration in the court of the stabbing action. The detail of that demonstration is not recorded, but is described by counsel as including a downward thrust. The importance of this point becomes clear when set against the medical evidence of a wound penetrating the left chest from the 5th to the 6th intercostal space to the heart indicating an upward direction of the blade towards the left shoulder. PW2 had described by his actions in court a downward thrust.
[10] The preponderance of evidence establishes that the deceased had fallen on his back on the ground before he was stabbed. Given that a stabbing wound from the left chest up to the left shoulder would also of necessity have involved something of a downward movement there is no necessary problem arising from the fact that the witness described a general downward motion.
[11] As a result of this and other inconsistencies between PW2, PW3 and PW6 it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned judge was not entitled to rely upon the evidence such as to arrive at a guilty verdict. It is further contended that this factor gains increased importance when the evidence was not corroborated.
[12] In the course of his judgment the learned judge recited a great deal of the evidence given and was clearly alert to the inconsistencies referred to in the appeal. Much of the evidence was corroborated: that the appellant and the deceased were present, that two knives had been in use for cutting lines, that the appellant and the deceased had a disagreement, and that the appellant struck blows on the deceased who fell to the ground. What remains uncorroborated is the actual stabbing, about which contradictory evidence comes from PW2 and the appellant.
[13] It is submitted for the appellant that because PW3 and PW6 did not see the stabbing when they might have been expected to have done so, this somehow affects the credibility of PW2. This cannot be correct in the circumstances of this informal gathering.
[14] In outlining the issues in dispute the learned judge made several references to the inconsistencies and dealt with them accordingly in his judgment. Those references appear frequently in the judgment and are not confined only to where he deals with some of them at page 14 of the judgment. His clear and thorough examination repeatedly demonstrates that the issues were all appropriately determined.
[15] Importantly he deals with the apparent discrepancy between the upward and downward stabbing movement at page 20 of the judgment and in the view of this court his conclusion does not amount to inappropriate speculation.
[16] In the circumstances this court is not persuaded that the conviction is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence. Accordingly, having granted leave to appeal, the appeal is dismissed.