Regina v Tumulima [2000] SBHC 81; HCSI-CRAC 54 of 2000 (6 March 2000)

CRAC 54/2000 HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Appeal Case No 54 of 2000

REGINA

V

ROBERT TUMULIMA & RICHARD MEKE

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)

Criminal Appeal Case Number 54 of 2000

In the Matter of Section 288(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Date of dismissal: 6th March 2000

PALMER J.: The Respondents (Robert Tumulima and Richard Meke) had each been charged with the offence of store breaking contrary to section 293 of the Penal Code [now section 300(a) of the Revised Edition of Laws 1996]. The offences were alleged to have been committed on 3rd January 1994. Both Respondents were arraigned sometime before 18th April 1995. Trial commenced on 12th September 1995, was delayed to 26th July 1996, further delayed to June 1997 and eventually completed when judgment was delivered on 11th August 1997. The whole process took some two years to complete. The presiding Magistrate acquitted both Respondents.

Section 285(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code required any appeals to the High Court to be lodged at the Magistrate’s Court within 14 days of date of decision. The time limit in this case expired on or about 25th August 1997. When appeal was eventually lodged, the filing date read as 14th April 1999 (that would be some 20 months after the date of decision). The Petition however was dated 14th April 1998. It is possible the date of filing had been erroneously recorded by the filing clerk. But even if the correct date should have been the 14th April 1998, that would still have been some 8 months after the date of decision. No application to have the period of limitation enlarged, had been made, and no reason whatsoever, had also been disclosed in the materials filed in this Court. I would have declined enlargement of time on that basis under section 285(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and dismissed appeal.

There is however a more substantive reason. I have had opportunity to peruse the judgment given in this case, the grounds of appeal and the record of proceedings, and it appearing that the evidence is sufficient to support the order of acquittal given by the learned Magistrate; and further, it appearing that there had been inordinate delay in the prosecution of this case, bearing in mind that the crucial piece of evidence relied on by Prosecution, being the confessional statements of both Respondents, had been obtained as early as February 1994 and therefore matter should have been brought before the Courts with expedition; and it further appearing that there would be a mis-carriage of justice even if the matter should be remitted to a differently constituted Magistrate’s Court for re-trial; and having satisfied myself that the appeal should be summarily dismissed pursuant to section 288(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code;

I ACCORDINGLY ORDER: THAT THE APPEAL BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

THE COURT