Regina v Bennett [2000] SBHC 83; HCSI-CRC 433 of 1999 (13 March 2000)

CRC 433/1999 HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER 433 OF 1999

REGINA

V

LLOYD BENNETT

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer J.)

Criminal Case Number 433 of 1999

Hearing: 13th March 2000
Reviewed: 13th March 2000

R. Talasasa for the Prosecution
Mrs. C. Titiulu for the Defendant

PALMER J.: This case had been called for review under section 46 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. Whilst perusing the file, I noticed there was clear evidence of other serious offences which had been committed by the Accused but had not been charged with. I therefore asked learned Counsels to appear and provide explanation.

Accused had been charged before the Magistrates’ Courts for being a member of an unlawful society contrary to section 68(a) of the Penal Code. When Accused was arraigned on 1st July 1999, he entered a not guilty plea. He was unrepresented. Case was then adjourned to 9th July 1999 for trial. Charges were amended on said date and his plea taken afresh. He maintained a not guilty plea. Trial commenced at 2.00 p.m. that afternoon. Accused was still not represented. Three prosecution witnesses were called that day. Trial was then adjourned. On 12th July 1999, trial re-commenced. Prosecution called one further witness. Trial however was stopped after sometime, when it became clear to the Presiding Magistrate that Accused may have been suffering from some mental disorder. Learned Magistrate called for a medical report on the Accused concerning his sanity. Case was further adjourned for mention to 19th July 1999. By that time, Accused had legal Counsel Mrs. Titiulu, assisting him. There were further adjournments to 6th September 1999. On said date, Mrs. Titiulu advised court that her client had decided to change his plea. Court had charges re-read to Accused, who pleaded guilty. He was convicted and sent to prison for two months.

During trial it became apparent a number of serious offences appear to have been committed as well; all related to firearms offences. There was evidence before the court which showed that the Accused was in possession of firearms including a hand grenade at the time of his arrest. This raises the question whether Accused had a firearm licence in force at the said time (section 5(2) of the Firearms and Ammunition Act [Cap. 80]). There was evidence which showed that the Accused made threatening actions against certain persons with a firearm and that he discharged a rifle in public [possible offences committed included threatening violence contrary to section 42; and discharging firearm in a public place contrary to section 44 of the Firearms and Ammunition Act]. How and why he was never charged for firearm offences by the Police has never been satisfactorily explained. This is of concern to me because there appear to be blatant omission on the part of the Police Officers who effected arrest on the accused, the investigating officers and prosecuting officers, to charge the Accused for those other related firearms offences. The Director of Public Prosecutions too, in particular learned Counsel taking carriage of this case, should have taken cognisance of those other offences, if not from statements of witnesses, then when it became obvious from the evidence adduced before the lower court that other offences had been committed and make application for adjournment, to consider whether to include those offences in the same charge or information under section 118(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It would only have been proper to have those other offences included in the same charge, as they were founded on more or less the same facts. But even if such application for some other reason should be denied by the presiding Magistrate, there is no bar to having the Accused charged and tried again for any other separate offence [see section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code]. The Police and Prosecution have duty to ensure that an accused person is charged with the offences he has been alleged to have committed, especially where the offences are classed as very serious offences. I wouldn’t describe firearm related offences in the context of the ethnic tension not serious. The court below also did not pick this blatant omission up and so it is left to this Court to remind everybody involved that there must be vigilance and diligence in the humble discharge of ones duty. Short of intruding into the exclusive domain of the learned Director of Public Prosecutions in the exercise and discharge of his powers, I am obliged to direct at the most, that he considers carefully the statements of witnesses in respect of this case and decide whether or not the Accused should also be charged for firearm related offences. Apart from this discrepancy, I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Magistrate in law or fact.

ALBERT R. PALMER
THE COURT