Regina v Raravete [2005] SBHC 169; HCSI-CRC 084 of 2005 (17 March 2005)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case Number 08405

REGINA

-V-

JOHN RARAVETE

(Palmer CJ)

Date of Hearing: 11th March 2005
Date of Judgment: 17th March 2005

M. Anders for the Applicant
P. Bannister for the Respondent

Palmer CJ.: The accused in this case, John Raravete (hereinafter referred to as "the Accused") applies for bail under section 106(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code ("the CPC"). He was arrested on a charge of murder and has been remanded in custody since about April 2004 or thereabouts.

Learned Counsel for the Accused seeks to stress that the case for Prosecution is weak in that it stands or falls principally on the evidence of one witness’s statements as to what she saw happened at the crucial time prior to and after the explosion. Learned Counsel submits that the evidence is such that when balanced with the risk of absconding, this court should be in a position to exercise its discretion in favour of bail rather than remand.

I have had opportunity to consider the strength of Prosecution’s case in this matter as urged upon me by Counsel for the Accused. The Prosecution in essence alleges that the Accused threw an explosive device into the fire where Dorah Natei ("the Deceased") was cooking. He then walked off and a few seconds later, there was an explosion which killed the Deceased instantly.

The crucial evidence or material came from the statement of Dorothy Sakinia ("Dorothy"). In her second statement taken on 16th March 2004, two days after the alleged incident, she stated that she saw the Accused walking to the kitchen where the Deceased was doing her cooking in an open fire place. She had a pot of cabbages on the fire. The Accused stood at the door and spoke with the Deceased in the kitchen. She heard him calling the name of the Deceased before walking away towards Betty Patanikeni’s ("Betty") house. A few seconds later she heard the explosion.

In her third statement dated 17th March 2004, she provided more details to Police. She again reiterated that she saw the Accused walking to the kitchen, standing at the door and talking to the Deceased in the kitchen. She estimated the time to be about 2-3 minutes. His right hand was holding onto the right side of the kitchen entrance. This time she described something held in the left hand of the Defendant. She described a piece of rope protruding from that object. She wasn’t sure of the colour of the object in his hands. She also described a throwing action with his left hand and an object being thrown into the direction of the fire. She described that object as bright red in colour. Shortly after this the Accused walked off in the direction of Betty’s house followed by the explosion a few seconds later.

In her fourth statement she merely repeated what she had stated earlier on but further added that just before the explosion she noticed a change in the appearance of the fire with more smoke coming from it. Just before the explosion occurred she saw the Deceased bending over towards the fire.

The two occupants in Betty’s house confirm the version of Dorothy about the Accused walking toward’s Betty’s house. These were Jack Hautewa ("Jack") and Ursula Haoia ("Ursula"). They saw the Accused standing at the front door steps and calling out to them, just before the explosion occurred. Note the Accused does not dispute this part though he disputes the other part of Dorothy’s statements.

The Accused gave a statement to Police under caution on 18th March 2004 in which he told Police that he normally sold betelnuts outside of Casper Wawane’s house (see sketch map of the area). Casper’s house is adjacent to the house the Deceased resides in with her husband. He told Police that on that Sunday 14th March he did not sell betelnut as he had stayed overnight at the old G. Province compound in the house of someone called Janet. This was Janet Lilito’ona’s house. He returned to Casper’s house in the morning after he had dropped off at the Fishing Village Bus stop and bought a bottle of "kwaso" which he drank. He says he drank his kwaso at a market place some ten metres away from the kitchen where the Deceased was cooking. He was with Maoh’s wife, a small child and a daughter of Casper. He denies going right up to the kitchen entrance standing there and talking to the Deceased. He says he merely walked past the kitchen and saw the Deceased cooking inside. He says he was on his way to ask some money from Betty’s sister, Ursula.

The Accused’s version regarding some of his crucial movements, prior to and immediately after the alleged incident however have been clearly contradicted by other witnesses in their statements. For instance, his statement that he spent the Saturday night with Janet Lilito’ona ("Janet") has been clearly contradicted/denied not only by Janet but by two other persons, Anna Ellen and Emma Sere who were also present at that house that night.

His version that he was at the market house with Moah’s wife and a small child and Casper’s daughter also has been refuted in the statements of Elizabeth Sumola and Salome Safo.

His version that he sells betelnuts in front of Casper’s house has also been refuted in the statements of Casper himself, Elizabeth and Salome Safo.

The post-mortem report and the post activity report by an explosives expert reveal that the Deceased died from an explosion which was consistent with that of a small unexploded munitions. The explosives expert report further suggested that it was possible that it was a weapon fuse which caused the incident (see post-mortem report of Dr. Chester Kuma dated 5th April 2004 and report of Sgt. G. Nagle). A further report dated 27th May 2004 has been provided by Staff Sgt. R. Wawari who sought to perform what in his opinion would have been a similar form of explosion using an unexploded 37 millimeter anti aircraft projectile with similar effects.

When the totality of the material in the statements is taken into account, it cannot be said that prosecution case is weak. There is material before a court which directly implicates this Accused and places him directly in the scene and within the vicinity from which the incident occurred and which directly implicates him as the person who caused the explosion. As to issues of conflict of evidence those are matters which would properly be reserved for trial but it cannot be accepted that the prosecution case is so weak that the risk in this case must be weighed in favour of the Accused. I cannot agree with that submission.

Further when the strength of the prosecution case is assessed with the circumstances of the offence, especially where it is evident from the post-mortem report and explosives expert’s report that death was caused by a small unexploded munitions, the stakes must necessarily be raised. The allegations raise a very serious situation which has occurred in relation to the incident and unless exceptional circumstances are shown bail cannot be granted.

When the history of previous convictions of this Accused is considered, he clearly has a string of offences behind him going as far back as 1987. Most of them relate to theft and house breaking offences resulting in the Accused having had to serve numerous custodial sentences. I note he has previous convictions for escaping from lawful custody in 1994 and 2002 and sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months and 2 months respectively. He also has a previous conviction for common assault. This history does not assist him in this bail application. The risk for society to bear if released regarding the commission of further offences whilst on bail cannot be overlooked. It must be categorised as a real risk.

In the circumstances whilst there are two sureties who have provided affidavits of support and a fixed address I cannot be satisfied that the discretion should be exercised in favour of bail.

On the issue of delay in listing, this is not the only case, there are others as well and delay is inevitable; it happens in all jurisdictions. The court is mindful of that issue and seeking to address it within its means. I am not satisfied however that it outweighs the risks which society will have to bear if this Accused is released on bail.

Orders of the Court:

Bail denied.

The Court.