Sangu v Regina [2004] SBHC 18; HC-CRC 045 of 2004 (27 February 2004)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 045 of 2004

JOE SANGU

-V-

REGINA

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(KABUI, ACJ).

Date of Hearing: 26^th February 2004
Date of Ruling: 27^th February 2004

C. Ryan for the Crown.
K. Averre for the Applicant.

RULING

Kabui, ACJ. This is an application for bail filed by the applicant. The application was filed on 11^th February 2004, supported by his affidavit filed the same day. He is being charged with robbery committed at Yandina and Tambea in 1998 and other charges relating to the robbery at Yandina in that same year. He has now been committed to stand his trial in the High Court on a date to be fixed. The prosecution opposes the bail on the grounds that the offences are serious in nature, he made admissions to committing the offences to the Police in interviews conducted by the Police and that the risk of absconding is real in view of absconding in the past when bailed by the Magistrate Court in Honiara in March, 1999. I have stated the law on bail application in my ruling this morning in Benedict Idu v Regina, Criminal Case No. 046 of 2004 and I need not repeat that in this ruling.

The Applicant’s case.

The applicant has made much of his contribution to the efforts to promoting peace between the MEF and IFM/GRA by being a signatory to the TPA in 2000 in his affidavit. He also makes reference to his efforts in promoting the same between the warring sides on Guadalcanal in his affidavit. This is supported by a letter written to whom it may concern signed by Kamilio Teke attached to the affidavit. He admits having jumped bail in 1999 but explains that having done so was due to the unsafe situation in Honiara at that time. He says he has been in custody too long and wants to be released before his trial takes place in the High Court. He says he plans to challenge the evidence against him at his trial. He says he has a wife and a child living in Honiara and for that reason would be willing to comply with any bail conditions that the court may see fit to impose on him. Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Averre, did raise the issue of the application of the Amnesty Act, 2000, passed by Parliament for the benefit of the militants who took part in the conflict in 1998 and 1999 into 2000. He argued that this matter was a relevant factor to be considered by the court in the exercise of its discretion to grant bail or otherwise.

Should bail be granted?

The only issue that I should decide is the argument by the Prosecution that the risk of the applicant absconding does exist and should be taken into account. The serious nature of the offences he allegedly committed and his admission of them to the Police in his caution statements recorded in 1998 and 1999 are only supplementary to the question of the risk of absconding upon being released on bail. The Prosecution’s argument against bail is influenced by the fact that the applicant had absconded before, a fact the applicant does not deny. I have read the record of interviews conducted by the Police in December, 1998 and in January, 1999 in which the applicant made certain admissions. I am quite impressed with the candid answers he gave in response to the questions put to him by Detective Sergeant Balaga. He now intends to challenge the admissions made by him in those interviews conducted by the Police. My conclusion from that is therefore that I am wrong when I say I have been impressed with his candid answers given during the interviews conducted by Detective Sergeant Balaga. What is then the motive for this apparent change of attitude by the applicant, accepting of course his innocence until proven guilty by a court of law? It does not seem to me that he has changed his attitude towards the course of justice taking its course in this case. The situation in 1999 when he and his accomplices were bailed to appear in court on a certain date was not what the applicant described in his affidavit. The offences of which he is being charged were committed after they failed to answer their bail to the Magistrate Court in Honiara. The applicant lied to the Court when he promised to appear on a certain date and he failed to do so. He did not keep his word. He is not a man of his word. He and his accomplices failed to appear. None of them ever did. The failure by them to appear in the Magistrate in answer to their bail had put the magistrate court into a situation of being criticized in the media very severely by the members of the public at that time. They caused the judiciary to be ridiculed by the community at large. This was of course unfair criticism. This is why the courts are always wary of granting bail too easily. The interest of the community or the public interest demands that the courts must balance out that interest against the liberty of the accused person applying for bail. The courts are fearful of bail being abused. That is why the courts use their discretion to grant bail or not to grant it. I take into account the fact that the applicant had signed the TPA and participated in the peace efforts on Guadalcanal. That is an obligation he owes this country and his own people of Guadalcanal for initiating the conflict on Guadalcanal which has brought down this country to its knees. I do not regard those matters as factors in favour of the applicant. He has a duty to do that to show remorse for what he had done to his country and his own people. It may be that the applicant now has a family and will not fail in his promise to the court this time for their sake. I do however have difficulty in reading him correctly because of his background as a former IFM/GRA militant commander. I do not however think he will go back to start another war on Guadalcanal. The application of the Amnesty Act, 2000 to him is not a foregone conclusion if there is a belief that he cannot be prosecuted for the offences with which he is currently being charged under that Act. I do not think the applicant can claim immunity at this stage as a factor in his favour in the consideration of his bail application. Whilst the applicant has told me in his affidavit some good things about himself, he has not told me the things, if any, that will convince me that he is entitled to be let out on conditions, if necessary, other than he has a family in Honiara. I do sympathize with his fate though of his own making. I cannot risk the possibility though remote it may be of giving the applicant another chance on bail on the same charges and see him abusing it again. The magistrate who granted him and his accomplices bail had to leave the country before his contract expired for obvious reason. I am not prepared to put myself again in a situation where the applicant, having secured the mercy of the court, turns around and shuns the court by failing to answer bail. The liberty of an accused person under the Constitution must be enjoyed with a sense of responsibility. It is not a magic wand for persons who may possess attitudes of indifference and that of using the justice system lightly. With much regret, bail is denied and accordingly, the application is refused. I hope that his trial will be fixed soon so that his final fate is decided by the High Court at his trial.

F.O. Kabui, ACJ.