PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Court of Appeal of Solomon Islands
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Court of Appeal of Solomon Islands >> 2025 >> [2025] SBCA 27

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

  Download original PDF

Manetoali v R [2025] SBCA 27; SICOA-CRAC 75 of 2023 (31 October 2025)

IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL


Case name:
Manetoali v R


Citation:


Decision date:
31 October 2025


Nature of Jurisdiction
Appeal from Judgment of The High Court of Solomon Islands (Palmer CJ)


Court File Number(s):
75 of 2023


Parties:
Samuel Manetoali v Rex


Hearing date(s):
13 October 2024


Place of delivery:



Judge(s):
Muria P
Gavara-Nanu JA
Morrison JA


Representation:
In-Person -Appellant
O. R Manu for the Respondent


Catchwords:



Words and phrases:


Legislation cited:
Penal Code [cap 26] S 278 (1) (c) (ii)
Constituency Development Fund Act 2013
Criminal Procedure Code [cap 7] S 197, The Constitution S 59 (3),


Cases cited:
Regina v Somae [2005] SBCA 18, R v Boyce


ExTempore/Reserved:
Reserved


Allowed/Dismissed:
Dismissed


Pages:
1-20

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

  1. The appellant was charged with multiple counts of conversion contrary to s 278(1)(c)(ii) of the Penal Code (Cap 26).
  2. On 27 August 2019, in the Magistrates Court, he was acquitted on 18 of those counts after a no-case submission was made at the end of the Crown case.
  3. The Crown then appealed that decision to the High Court where Palmer J[1]:
  4. The appellant challenges that decision on several grounds, each contending that his Lordship erred in fact or law in the following way:
  5. The Appellant is the current elected Member of Parliament for the Gao/Bugotu Constituency in the Isabel Province. He was re-elected as the Member of Parliament for that Constituency in 2014. In the last National General Elections in 2019, he retained his seat.
  6. The allegations relate to the payment of a sum of $100,000 on or about 24 December 2014, into the Gao/Bugotu Constituency Account with the ANZ Bank.
  7. There is no dispute that this sum of money was part of the $300,000 which the ROC provided towards the Constituency Development Fund (CDF). All the members of parliament received this sum of money on behalf of their respective constituencies in December 2014.
  8. His Lordship categorized the 18 counts relevantly as follows:

Conversion

  1. Section 278(1)(c)(ii) of the Penal Code (Cap 26) provides:
  2. The elements of the offence can be stated thus:
  3. As His Lordship noted,[2] there is no issue as to elements (a)-(c). The appellant received the sum of $300,000, being part of the Constituency Development Funds for the Gao/Bugotu Constituency, for and on behalf of the members of the Constituency. Those members would be applying for income generating projects for socio-economic activities.

Legal principles – no case to answer

  1. Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 7) provides:
  2. The test applicable in such circumstances is “whether there is evidence capable of supporting a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty”.[3]
  3. If there is evidence capable of establishing, whether directly or inferentially, every element of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt, there is a case to answer.
  4. If there is evidence capable of establishing, whether directly or inferentially, every element of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt, there is a case to answer.
  5. There is no contention on this appeal that His Lordship mistook the relevant test.

Body of evidence

  1. His Lordship considered the substantive body of evidence before the Magistrate’s Court in respect of the counts in question. It relevantly consisted of:
  2. The evidence of PW3 assumed some importance before the Magistrate’s Court and before His Lordship. This was because of the role played by PW3 in relation to the Constituency Development Funds:[6]
  3. The Magistrate found as undisputed facts that:[9]
  4. The evidence of Ms Boso, PW1, was that she was the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development and Indigenous Affairs. She identified that there were three uses for which the funds could be used, “firstly to assist newly elected members of Parliament to establish constituency offices; secondly to meet socio-economic needs of constituents and thirdly to support continuing projects of the constituency”. She said the $100,00 was an advance payment from the ROC Support Fund to Constituency Development.

Categories of evidence

  1. The main document relied upon by the Crown was Exhibit PEX 1, the CDF Operations Manual. Subject to one new contention advanced by Mr Maneatoli for the first time at the hearing of the appeal,[10] there is no challenge to His Lordship’s findings as to its nature and purpose:[11]

Substance of counts 3-9, 12, 14 and 16

  1. Count 3: payment of $500 for “medical assistance” to one Gideon Jesse. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.
  2. Count 4: payment of $2,000 to one Thomas Tavake for “Engravement Expenses”, namely engravement of his son’s gravestone. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.
  3. Count 5: payment of $400 to one Francis Loke for “old people assistance”. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.
  4. Count 6: payment of $1,008 to one Chief Davis Maneboro for “3 x cartons of beer”. The payment was collected by one Isaac Leguvaka. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.
  5. Count 7: payment of $1,008 to one Ellison Supa for “3 x cartons of beer”. The payment was collected by one Isaac Leguvaka. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.
  6. Count 8: payment of $336 to one Marshall Hiro for “1 x carton of beer”. The payment was collected by one Isaac Leguvaka. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.
  7. Count 9: payment of $1,000 to one Joel Neusia for “wedding assistance”. The payment was collected by one Isaac Leguvaka. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.
  8. Count 12: payment of $440 to one Chris Vahia for “4 gallons of petrol”. The payment was collected by one Paul Wale. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.
  9. Count 14: payment of $540 to one Robert Tige for “Beer”. The payment was collected by one Ronald Leguvaka. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.
  10. Count 16: payment of $90 to one Chris Ugura for “Beer”. The payment was collected by one Ronald Leguvaka. Witness PW3 confirmed the payment by means of the records but knew nothing of it and only became aware of it when he received the payment voucher.

Consideration

  1. As to the impugned payments in counts 3-9, 12, 14 and 16, we make the following observations:
  2. His Lordship’s conclusion that there was a case to answer was largely based on the disparity between the nature of the payments in counts 3-9, 12, 14 and 16 and what was contemplated by the CDF Manual:[12]
  3. The payments on these counts can be contrasted with others, where there was evidence of the use of the funds for Constituency purposes and little evidence to exclude such use. Thus, for example, count 2 involved payment for a pig used at a Christmas party which was part of Gao/Bugotu “Constituency Consultations”. The evidence of Ms Boso, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development and Indigenous Affairs, identified that there were three uses for which the funds could be used, “firstly to assist newly elected members of Parliament to establish constituency offices; secondly to meet socio-economic needs of constituents and thirdly to support continuing projects of the constituency”.[13] It was not disproved that the Christmas party was part of the consultation process.[14]
  4. The same is the case in respect of count 1, which involved payment of a sum for the costs of the Christmas party.[15]
  5. There is no compelling reason why the evidence of Ms Boso should be treated as excluding the inference that the payments in counts 3-9, 12, 14 and 16 were made for improper and dishonest purposes. Her evidence was that DEX2 (the Acquittal template provided by the ROC) contained the following “sectors of expenditure”:[16] (i) medical; (ii) education; (iii) sports; (iv) youth; (v) women; (vi) denomination; (vii) infrastructure; (viii) general; and (ix) administration.
  6. Further, her evidence was that the payments in counts 3-9, 12, 14 and 16 were proper and in accordance with the sectors listed above.[17]
  7. However, it is evident from the Magistrate’s summary of Ms Boso’s evidence that Ms Boso made no assessment beyond whether the payments, in her view, fell with the “sectors” she referred to, and made no assessment according to the requirements of the CDF Manual.
  8. Ground 4 contends that over-emphasis was placed on the CDF Manual (Exhibit PEX 1) when the ROC had its own guidelines, standards and templates. We reject that contention. Whilst it is true that the ROC had its own view of things, the ROC Support Fund was administered by the Ministry of Rural Development and the Ministry developed its own CDF Manual to govern the process of applying the funds.
  9. His Lordship set out a summary of the CDF Manual’s provisions, in a way that is not the subject of criticism on this appeal and may be adopted by this Court. The passages bear repeating:[18]
  10. We note these aspects of the CDF Manual:
  11. In our view, the CDF Manual set out the standards to apply in such detail that the ROC’s point of view is irrelevant.
  12. Ground 5 contends that the failure to call the recipients of payments meant that there was insufficient evidence to make the appellant answer the case. We reject that contention. There was evidence from PW3 that:
  13. There was, therefore, proof that the payments were made for the purposes identified in the payment vouchers and the Acquittal Report, and to the persons who were alleged to be recipients. Given that the relevant state of mind in the offences is that of the appellant, and not that of the recipients of payments, there is nothing further that they could add that would affect the issues before this Court.
  14. The appellant contends that support for the critical absence of the recipients’ evidence can be drawn from the Magistrate’s reasons where she referred to the fact that they were not called. The contention is misconceived. The reasons list the recipients for (relevantly) counts 3-9, 12, 14 and 16.[21] Then follows this:
  15. Plainly the Magistrate identified that there was evidence to prove, on a prima facie basis, that the listed recipients did receive the sums alleged.
  16. The appellant also seeks to draw support from a comment by His Lordship when discussing the elements to be considered on the appeal to the High Court. Drawing on R v Boyce,[22] His Lordship identified[23] that there were three elements as to fraudulent conversion: (i) that the money was entrusted to the accused for a particular purpose; (ii) “that he used it for some other purpose”; and (iii) that the misuse of the money was fraudulent and dishonest. His Lordship said as to the second element:[24]
  17. This is said to show that His Lordship “was not sure whether or not the payments were made to the beneficiaries”.[25] In our view, it does no such thing. All His Lordship was commenting upon was the legal theory as to how the second element can be proved, not whether it was proved in this case.
  18. The case came before His Lordship on a no-case hearing. That requires the Court to consider if there is evidence capable of establishing, whether directly or inferentially, every element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of evidence from the recipients does not affect that consideration, particularly where, as here, the Crown relies on the inference to be drawn from the disparity between the impugned payments and those mandated by the CDF Manual.

Ground 6

  1. Ground 6 contends that His Lordship failed to consider the evidence of PW1 to the effect that the Constituency Development Fund Act had not been gazetted or put into operation. As things stood just before the hearing of the appeal this ground was no longer pressed as the appellant conceded in his written outline that the Act came into force when it was gazetted on 1 November 2013.
  2. However, that changed when Mr Manetoali appeared on his own behalf. He sought to amend his submissions to now contend that the Act never came into force and therefore any reference to it was an error of law. A second aspect of that contention was that the CDF Manual was unlawful.
  3. The contention was that, contrary to the concession made in the outline dated 9 September 2025, the Act did not come into operation because:
  4. How the CDF Manual was said to be unlawful was never clearly articulated, except that Mr Manetoali asserted that it derived its existence from the Act, in a way never specified. Mr Manetoali seemed to accept that whatever its status, it was a working operations manual applied by the department responsible for the CDF programme.
  5. The contention as to the CDF Manual must be rejected. It was no dispute before His Lordship:[26]
  6. Further, the CDF Manual had the features referred to in paragraphs 41-42 above. It was, on any reasonable view, a comprehensive manual governing the application for and use of CDF funds.
  7. Further, the CDF Act does not refer to the CDF Manual at all, and the CDF Manual itself specified that it was “prepared for use by the Ministry of Rural Development in the absence of the CDF Act 2013 and the CDF Regulations 2013”.[28]
  8. Finally, the contention as to the status of the CDF Act is misplaced. His Lordship merely referred to it as exemplifying the source, purpose and use of CDF funds, but it was the CDF Manual that weighed thereafter in his consideration.

Conclusion

  1. For the reasons given above, we consider that there is a case to answer on counts 3-9, 12, 14 and 16. It cannot be demonstrated that His Lordship erred in finding so.

Result

  1. The appeal is dismissed.

Muria P
Gavara-Nanu JA
Morrison JA

[1] As His Lordship then was.
[2] Reasons paragraph 37.
[3] Regina v Somae [2005] SBCA 18.
[4] To which we shall refer as the CDF Manual.
[5] Appeal Book, p 164, paragraph 86.
[6] Reasons, paragraphs 59.
[7] Appeal Book, p 159, paragraphs 50-51.
[8] Appeal Book, p 163, paragraph 72.
[9] Appeal Book, p 153, paragraphs 13-14.
[10] We shall deal with this contention later in these reasons.
[11] Reasons paragraph 49-54.
[12] Reasons paragraphs 120, 125, 133. See also paragraphs 129, 138, 142, 146, 154 and 158.
[13] Reasons paragraph 110.
[14] Reasons paragraph 111.
[15] Reasons paragraphs 56-71.
[16] Appeal Book, p 165, paragraph 87.
[17] Appeal Book, p 165, paragraph 90.
[18] Reasons paragraphs 22-28. Emphasis in original. Footnotes omitted.
[19] Appeal Book, p 159, paragraphs 50-51.
[20] Appeal Book, p 163, paragraph 72.
[21] Appeal Book, p 162, paragraph 70.
[22] 40 CR. Ap. R. 62 at 63.
[23] Reasons paragraph 39.
[24] Reasons paragraph 41.
[25] Appellant’s outline paragraph 5.1.
[26] Reasons paragraphs 16-22, appeal book, pages 5-6.
[27] Reasons paragraph 16, appeal book page 5.
[28] Emphasis added.

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBCA/2025/27.html