Miki v Reginam [2004] SBHC 11; HC-CRC 014 of 2004 (10 February 2004)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case Number 19 of 2004

HENRY MIKI

V.

REGINAM

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer CJ)

Hearing: 10^th February 2004
Ruling: 10^th February 2004

K. Averre for the Applicant
F. Mwanesalua for the Respondent

Palmer CJ.: The Applicant Henry Miki (“the accused”) was charged with the murder of Elwin Freeman Iro on 7^th October 2003, at Henderson, Guadalcanal Province. He was committed for trial before the High Court after a short form of preliminary inquiry (“PI”) held on 19^th January 2004. Call over on the case is yet to be done for a trial date to be fixed. The accused asks for bail pending trial of his action.

The primary ground relied on by the accused for bail is based on the submission that the case against him is not strong; that there is evidentiary material before this court which showed that the fatal injury incurred on the neck of the deceased, Elwin Iro was caused by a shard of glass from the broken louver glasses from which it was suggested he may have attempted to jump or force his way through. The defence relied on the post mortem report of the Pathologist – Dr. Malcolm John Dodd who concluded that the cause of death was “acute blood loss and aspiration of blood after a single deep incised injury to the neck”. In his report the pathologist also suggested that a shard of glass was implicated as the cause of the injury and probably incurred as a result of an accident. Defence also put forward a surety from the employer of the accused and that the accused would reside at the Airport Motel if released.

The Prosecution on the other hand object bail arguing that the case was serious, the evidence strong and that any sureties should have been from an independent person. Learned Counsel also pointed out that most of the witnesses reside and work at the Airport Motel in any event and that it would not be appropriate for the accused to be allowed to reside at the Motel and to have access to the prosecution witnesses. Learned Counsel also object on the grounds that PI had been completed and that the matter was now awaiting a hearing date before this court.

Bail is discretionary^[1] and therefore not to be unreasonably withheld^[2]. In murder cases however, it can only be granted on exceptional grounds^[3].

The thrust of the bail application by the accused is that the evidence against the accused is not strong. Unfortunately, that is not so. To the contrary the evidence is direct and strong. It wasn’t the case where there was no direct evidence on the cause of the injury. The evidence of the pathologist actually confirmed that the deceased died from the blood loss due to the injury to his neck. The crucial issue will be on the question as to what caused the injury to his neck. The report of the pathologist must be balanced against the direct evidence that the deceased was stabbed on the neck by the accused.

In so far as this aspect of the case, namely on the strength of the prosecution case as portrayed by the evidence had been sought to be relied on as an exceptional circumstance, I cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that what has been described meets the requirement.

In the circumstances, bail must be denied. The accused is to be remanded in custody and to be brought to court for trial on a date to be fixed.

The Court.

---

^[1] Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code
^[2] see John Mae Jino and John Gwali Ta ari v. Reginam (Unreported Criminal Appeal Case 172 of 1999)
^[3] see Regina v. Kong Ming Khoo (unreported 1991 per Ward CJ)