Lobo v Director of Public Prosecutions [1985] SBHC 2; HC-CRAC 08 of 1985 (3 April 1985)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1985

JOHN BUKAI LOBO
Appellant

-v-

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Respondent

Hearing: April 1, 1985
Judgment: April 3, 1985

Counsel: Mr T. Kama for the respondent
The appellant appeared in person

Wood CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted by the Magistrates' Court (Central) on December 5, 1984 of robbery c/s 286(1)(b) of the Penal Code and sentenced to two years imprisonment.

The facts of this case as found by the learned Chief Magistrate were that on the evening of August 24, 1984 the victim of the robbery was in the lavatory at the Mendana Hotel with his brother-in-law when the latter handed over to him $300 in cash in a plastic holder together with three bank passbooks. The appellant was present and witnessed this transaction. After the bar closed the victim and the appellant left the hotel together and at the junction with Hibiscus Avenue close to the Girl Guide's Hut the appellant put his hand into the victim's pocket and when the victim tried to stop him he grabbed him around the neck and threw him to the ground. The appellant ran off with the money and passbooks. The victim's evidence as to the transaction in the lavatory was corroborated by his brother-in-law Denis and the security guard at the hotel confirmed that he saw the appellant and the victim leave the hotel together. A Police Constable, PC Gena, gave evidence that the victim made a complaint to him as a result of which he visited the scene and found that the earth had been disturbed, there were two fourex beer cans and coins on the ground and that the victim had cuts on his knee, arm and leg.

In his address to me the appellant pointed out what he considered to be specific matters of discrepancy between the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the learned Chief Magistrate failed to take into consideration his own evidence. In short the appellant's grounds for appeal were that the evidence before the learned Chief Magistrate was so unsafe and unsatisfactory that this Court should quash the conviction.

In his judgment the learned Chief Magistrate said –

"I have seen all the witnesses and defendant give evidence. I was of opinion that Francis (victim) gave the impression of a man genuinely trying to recall details of an incident some time ago. He did get one or two things different to other witnesses but on major points his account was confirmed by others. The defendant did not impress me as a man telling the truth, and I reject his evidence. ........

I accept the evidence of Francis which is confirmed in material ways by two other independent witnesses, and his brother-in-law Denis."

It would therefore appear that the learned Chief Magistrate did indeed consider the discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses' evidence but came to the conclusion that, they were not sufficient to cause him to have any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. There was nothing raised by the appellant to cause me to believe that the learned Chief Magistrate failed to correctly assess the evidence before him or that there was insufficient evidence before him to reach the conclusion to which he came. There was in fact ample evidence before him to find that the appellant was guilty of the crime of robbery c/s 286(1)(b) of the Penal Code.

As far as sentence is concerned this was a serious crime in which $300 was stolen. Owing to the appellant's very bad record there was nothing to be said for him in mitigation of sentence and two years imprisonment was by no means manifestly excessive.

I would refuse to grant leave to appeal.

(F. Wood)
CHIEF JUSTICE