Regina v Mezer [1991] SBHC 23; HC-CRC 012 of 1990 (26 March 1991)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 12 of 1990

REGINA

-v-

ELIZER MEZER

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Ward C.J.)

Hearing: 25 March 1991
Judgment: 26 March 1991

F. Mwanesalua, DPP for Prosecution
J. Remobatu for the Defence

WARD CJ: This accused is charged with the rape of Priscilla Karina on 26th February 1990 at Mei village in Temotu.

The prosecution case is that the victim, a sixteen year old girl, was on the beach with some small children. After they had eaten, they heard some boys coming and ran away. The children went back to the village and Priscilla went into the bush to cut coconuts for the pigs.

At one point, she heard a twig snap and looked around but saw nobody. Shortly afterwards a similar sound attracted her attention and she saw the accused approaching her a few feet away. She got up and started to run away and, at the same time, he said he wanted to hold her breasts. She continued to move away and he grabbed her blouse causing it to tear. He then took her by the shoulder, pushed her to the ground, lifted her skirt and had sexual intercourse. She struggled and called out for her mother and brother and eventually he held her mouth to stop her.

When he had finished, he left her and she went to the sea to wash and then, after gathering up her knife and bowl, went to the village.

Once there she saw the witness, Simon, and told him what had happened.

The accused gave sworn evidence and described how he had asked the girl if he could hold her breasts. He then asked if he could have sexual intercourse and she said good. She lay down, lifted her skirt and they had sexual intercourse. She was willing and did not in any way dissent. Afterwards, he took her to the sea to wash. It was not put to the victim, but in cross examination the accused said he had previously had sexual intercourse with the victim. She was recalled by the prosecution and denied it. As a result of this attack on her character, the prosecution asked the accused about a case a few months prior to the present one in which he admitted indecently assaulting a different girl. It was shown there were a number of similarities between the two cases. However, I feel this case should be decided on its own and beyond the fact that I note he has a previous conviction to which he has pleaded guilty, I shall ignore that evidence.

The complainant's evidence in this case is uncorroborated. I must first ask myself if she was a credible witness. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that she was. However, I must warn myself of the dangers of relying on her uncorroborated evidence and I do so.

She gave her evidence in a restrained and careful way. Whilst there is nothing that can amount to corroboration, her evidence is supported to some extent by Simon's evidence. He described how, when he saw her, she had red marks or scratches that showed no bleeding on her face that could have been caused by the accused's hand if the victim's account is right. That witness also noted she had rubbish in her hair and on her clothes and her blouse was torn.

It was pointed out that he had told the police of blood on her face and his evidence also conflicted in some parts with the girl's evidence. However, I found him a credible witness and I accept his account in court is true.

The accused also gave his evidence in a subdued and quiet manner but I found his account of the actual incident was unconvincing. When he was cross examined, his manner changed and the sudden claim to have had previous sexual intercourse with the girl was, in my view, untrue. I felt overall that his evidence showed a careful attempt to modify her account sufficiently to show consent. I did not believe him. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the girl and the witness Simon were telling the truth. The accused had sexual intercourse with this girl against her consent and he is convicted of rape.

(F.G.R. Ward)
CHIEF JUSTICE