Regina v Maeni [1999] SBHC 46; HC-CRC 117 of 1999 (30 April 1999)

HOURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 117 of 1999

class="Mso="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> REGINA

>

v

p class=lass="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> High Court of Solomon Islands
Before: Palmer.J.
Criminal Case No: 117 of 1999

Hearing: 30 April, 1999
Ru 30 April, 1999

<

Bail Application

p class="MsoNormal" style="yle="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">

A. Radclyffe for the Applicant/Defendant
F. Mwanesalua (DPP) for the Crown

PALMER J.: The accused, Dickson Maeni has been charged with the offence of murder under section 200 of the Penal Code (Revised Edition 1996) for the killing of Ishmael Panda. The incident occurred at Bungana Island during a police operation to capture a number of offenders, including the deceased, suspected of having committed a number of serious offences it was when those suspects had ran away from a shoot-out with the police at the seaside that the accused together with others went after the deceased and the other suspects and resulted in the killing of the deceased. The accused was a police officer up until the time of investigations, when he was then suspended from formal duties pending outcome of the investigations and now this case.

It is correct that bail applications in murder charges are rarely given by this Court. It is because the nature of the charge and the severity, of the punishment are very serious. But that does not mean that bail will not be considered or given. There have been a number of cases which fall within the category of exceptional cases, in which bail has been granted. The usual considerations which this Court must take into account are; the possibility of absconding and interference with witnesses.

The major objection of the learned Director of Public Prosecutions is that hat of absconding. Especially he seeks to highlight the home origins of this accused and the experiences had in the past of a number of persons who have escaped and have proven very hard to re-capture.

ile that may be so on one hand, I have to take this accusedcused as he appears before me in court and not allow those other incidents to colour my judgment on this important issue of bail.

It is my respectful view there are marked distinguishing features in this his case if one cares to analyse them in detail. First, the accused before me is a police officer, more correctly, was a police officer at the time of commission of the offence and therefore a man subject to discipline. Secondly, he was involved in a high powered operation involving the use of weapons and having to deal with persons who most likely were armed and were armed at the time of the incident. It wasn’t a case where this accused had gone out purposely at the outset to commit an offence. The charge of murder arose at the point of time the suspects and deceased were sighted and engaged for purposes of capture. What happened at that critical point of time will be a matter for the trial Judge to determine whether the accused’s actions amounted to murder or to a lesser charge of manslaughter. I must bear that crucial factor in mind when deciding on this application for bail.

Thirdly, I note the ances by defence counsel which the accused had given aven and that he was not going to run away, but is prepared to face up to the charges drawn up against him. There is nothing at this stage that gives me cause for concern about the genuiness and sincerity of this assurance. He has indicated place of residence and his willingness to abide by any court orders.

What is crucial is that if hall is granted Ieasonably satisfied the e accused will not abscond. Whilst I take note of the concerns of the learned DPP, I do not give them much weight when taking into account the circumstances of this accused which I have already adverted to. I am not satisfied there is a real possibility that the accused will abscond merely because he happens to come from that part of the country where there have been instances of escape and difficulty in recapture. The accused’s former status and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence weigh heavily in his favour.

On the issue of interference of witnesses, that is a remote possibility. Investigations have more or less been finalised and also most of the witnesses will be police officers in any event, apart from several civilian witnesses from Gela.

As ade, the learned DPP referred to a prison escapee from the athe area where this accused comes from who had not yet been re-captured in support of his submissions. That however must be balanced with the question whether any attempts have been made at all to have that escapee recaptured. If none or far few attempts have been made, then of-course it will be very difficult to do so.

I am satisfied this calls within the category of y of exceptional cases where I am prepared to grant bail and will do so on the following conditions:

ass="Mso="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: -34.9pt; margin-left: 70.9pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">

. &bsp; A necogce of $1000 00 each each is entered into by two sureties to ensure that accused appears in Court on the date and time set for his trial, failing which amount of the recognisance may be forfeited.

3. &nbsp &nbbp;&nAcp; ed resides wits with his family at Gilbert Camp and does not leave Honiara.

lass=lass="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: -34.9pt; margin-left: 70.9pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> 4. &nbs; &nbbsp; &nbsportsports to Naha Poli Police Station on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays on or before 0900 hrs until trial.

<

THE COURTCOURT