Regina v Asia [1993] SBHC 78; HCSI-CRC 45 of 1992 (8 December 1993)

CRC - 45/92.HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 45 of 1992

REGINA

-v-

ASIA & FRAZER LAUSALO

High Court of Solomon Islands

Criminal Case No. 45 of 1992

Hearing: 7 December 1993
Ruling: 8 December 1993

D.P.P. for Prosecution
J. Remobatu for P. Asia
B. Titiulu for Lausalo

PALMER J: The crucial question in this voir dire application is whether the cautioned statement of the accused Frazer Lausalo made on the 8th April 1992 was voluntarily made. In order to assist the court about the discretion it has, to admit a cautioned statement, there are what are called Judge’s rules set out to guide police officers in their conduct of investigations and interview of accused persons. These spell out inter alia, that no force is to be used, or threats, or promises, held out to any person whereby they may be induced into giving a false confession or statement.

The allegation of force and threats was made against police officer, Fred Filia. He stated that before he was interviewed by police officer Richard Falasi, witnessed by Saxon Sai, Fred Filia had pointed his finger directly at his eyes and told him to admit that he was the one who had committed the offence. He then pushed his head and told him that if he did not admit the offence he will be put in the cells for 5 months. If he admitted the offence on the other hand he will be released. The accused stated that he then became frighten, and on thinking of his family he agreed to the statement as told to him by the officers.

The first important point to note here is that if what this accused had stated was the truth, then when Mr. Filia left the room, surely any further threats or possible threats would either have been removed or if not, had been reduced.

In his evidence under oath, the accused stated clearly that he was cautioned by the interviewing officer. He therefore understood clearly what he was saying or making in that statement. If he was frightened, he would have said so or indicated to both officers what his fear or concerns were. There is no evidence from the accused to say that the interviewing and witnessing officers had used any force or threats or promises on him whatsoever. So surely, he would have felt at ease with them and voluntarily made his statement.

Both officers gave very clear evidence that this witness was cool, calm and relaxed, and gave his statement voluntarily. They both stated very clearly that no mention whatsoever was made to them about any threats that Fred Filia may have made against this accused. They also both denied any knowledge that whilst in their presence Fred Filia may have assaulted or threatened the accused. Fred Filia himself, when asked also denied threatening or using force against the accused or making any promises.

Mr. Titiulu has sought to make something out of the period from 4.00 p.m. - 5.30 p.m., during which the witness Saxon Sai had stated that they were merely talking with the accused. Unfortunately, the accused has not said anything about that period. His allegation is based on what Fred Filia had done to him prior to this. So even if it was a period of interview when Richard Falasi and Saxon Sai were merely talking or chatting with the accused and making notes, I am not satisfied that the point has any significant bearing or influence on the accused. It could have been different if it was alleged that the force, threats or promises, were made during that period.

One of the threats alleged by the accused was that he would be put in custody for 5 months if he did not admit the offence. That indeed may be a threat, but I wonder if by confessing a lie as he has claimed here, to be released, he realised that if his so-called false statement was accepted and believed by the court, that on conviction, he could be spending longer than a mere period of 5 months in the cells.

I do not believe this accused that he was so forced or threatened to the point that he has confessed to a false statement, to be released. However, it does not necessarily mean that the statement on the other hand is true. That is a matter to be weighed at the end of the trial.

I rule therefore that the cautioned statement has been voluntarily made and accordingly is admissible.

(A.R. Palmer)
JUDGE