Maelasi v Reginam [2000] SBHC 82; HCSI-CRAC 419 of 1999 (10 March 2000)

CRAC 419/99 HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Appeal Case No: 419 of 1999

DAVID MAELASI

V

REGINAM

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J)

Criminal Appeal Case No: 419 of 1999

Hearing: 10th March 2000
Judgment: 10th March 2000

Appellant in person (unrepresented)
R.B. Talasasa for Respondent

Palmer J: The Appellant was convicted in the Magistrate’s Court and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on a charge of house breaking contrary to section 300(1) of the Penal Code. He commenced serving his sentence with effect from 20th October 1999. He now appeals against conviction and sentence. The grounds of appeal raised however only pertain to conviction.

He was unrepresented in the Court below. The learned Registrar of High Court however had informed Public Solicitor to assist the Appellant in his appeal. I am informed the Appellant was seen by a Solicitor but that after taking instructions that Solicitor had declined to take up the appeal, understandably on grounds that no valid ground of appeal had been raised.

I have listened carefully to the arguments of Appellant in support of his grounds of appeal particularized as follows:

[1] Five men who actually committed the offence were still at large;

[2] I was wrongly charged; and

[3] Police forced me to plead guilty.

The first ground raised is immaterial. When caught those so-called other offenders will also be charged and given their day in Court. As to the second and third grounds, nothing said by this Appellant in Court convince me that I should set aside conviction or sentence. This Appellant was in Court and when charge was explained to him by presiding Magistrate, he admitted the offence by pleading guilty, No suggestion whatsoever had been given which might suggest he did not understand what charge he was pleading to. Further in his mitigation before the Magistrates Court he again admitted his guilt but sought to minimise his involvement by pointing out that he stayed outside. This was duly taken into account by the learned Magistrate in sentence. He now seeks to change his story. With respect I am not convinced. He has had his day in the Court below. I find nothing in law or fact to warrant intervention. Appeal should be dismissed. I certify Orders to the Magistrate Court as follows:-

1. Dismiss Appeal

2. Affirm Conviction and Sentence.

ALBERT R.PALMER
THE COURT