Isa v Regina [2008] SBCA 12; CA-CRAC 3 of 2008 Isa v R (9 July 2008)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL

NATURE OF JURISDICTION:	Appeal from Judgment of the High Court of Solomon Islands (Brown J)
COURT FILE NUMBER:	Criminal Appeal Case No. 3 of 2008 (On Appeal from High Court Criminal Case No 315 & 329 of 2004)
DATE OF HEARING:	9th July 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9th July 2008
THE COURT:	Williams JA Goldsbrough JA Adams JA
PARTIES:	GEDILY ISA -V- REGINA
ADVOCATES:
Appellant:	R B Talasasa
Respondent:	Ms N Manning
KEY WORDS:
EX TEMPORE/RESERVED:
ALLOWED/DISMISSED:
PAGES:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Gedily Isa, Owen Isa and William Hence were each charged with the murder of Brother Nathaniel Sado. Their joint trial commenced on the 20th of March 2006 and was finalized on the 15th of March 2007 when the High Court Judge conducting the trial found each of the five guilty of murder. Ronnie Cawa and Ronnie Isa have not appealed their conviction for that murder. Carradine Pitakaka and William Hence each appealed against the conviction for murder and their appeals were heard by a differently constituted bench of this court on the 11th of October 2007. Judgment was given on the 18th of October 2007. For the reasons then given each appeal against conviction was allowed; the convictions for murder were quashed and the matter remitted to the High Court for trial by a different Judge. This Court is now concerned with the appeal by Gedily Isa against his conviction for murder. There is a common factor between the appeal of Hence and the appeal by Gedily Isa with which this Court is now concerned. It was part of the prosecution case that each of Hence and Gedily Isa had admitted to investigators involvement in the commission of the killing. Those alleged confessions were the subject of a voir dire conducted on the 20th of March 2006 in order to determine the voluntariness of the statements in question. The trial Judge gave a ruling on 27th July 2006 in which he determined that the statements in question were voluntarily made and in consequence were admissible. The reasons that he gave for arriving at that decision were identical in each of the cases of Hence and Gedily Isa. The principal basis on which this Court on 18 October 2007 allowed Hence’s appeal was that the trial judge applied the wrong test in determining the admissibility of the statements in question; as I have said exactly the same point does arise in the course of the appeal by Gedily Isa. The Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Talasasa has quite properly informed the Court that in those circumstances he could not do otherwise than concede that there should be a similar outcome in the appeal by Gedily Isa. This Court has read the reasons of the earlier court delivered on 18th October 2007 and can see no basis for distinguishing those reasons from the aspect of Gedily Isa’s appeal which deals with the voluntariness of his alleged admissions. In those circumstances this Court will accede to what in effect is the submission from both Ms Manning counsel for the appellant and Mr Talasasa as Counsel for the respondent that the appeal should be allowed, the conviction for murder quashed and the matter remitted to the High Court for retrial. That is the judgment of the Court and the order will be as I indicated. No further orders sought by either Counsel? Adjourn the Court.

Williams JA
Vice President

Goldsbrough JA
Member

Adams JA
Member