Peter v Regina [2005] SBHC 20; HCSI-CRC 431 of 2005 (9 November 2005)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case Number 431-05

STEVEN PETER

V.

REGINA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer CJ.)

Date of Hearing: 28 October 2005
Date of Judgement: 9 November 2005

P. Little for the Crown
H. Barklay for the Applicant/Accused.

Palmer CJ.: The Applicant (Steven Peter) is charged with eleven other accuseds for some of the most serious crimes committed during the ethnic conflict against some of their own relatives; now known as “the Marasa Case”. The incidents occurred on or about 16 June 2003 when about 400 villagers from Marasa and surrounding villages were abducted by followers of Harold Keke and his group, called the Guadalcanal Liberation Front (“GLF”). It was alleged the villagers were detained for assisting the Solomon Islands Government (“the Government”) and the Joint Operation Force. The Applicant was alleged to be present with other followers of Harold Keke and participated directly in the abduction of certain villagers (Veronica Lauvota, Geoffrey Virua, Nicodemus Valena, Edwin Tabulo and Derek Kitolo) and the murder of two villagers, John Lovana and Adrian Smith Bilo. He was also charged for being a member of an unlawful society. The murder charges carry a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment if convicted whilst the abduction charges carry maximum penalty of 7 years and the charge of being member of an unlawful society, 3 years.

The case is now fixed for trial to commence on 24 April 2006 for 7 weeks with a total of some 80-90 witnesses; 23 of whom will be comprised of Police and Expert witnesses, including former members of the Police and Military contingent of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (“RAMSI”) who have already left the country. This will be one of the big tension cases that this country will run through the courts in terms of seriousness, numbers of persons involved, both accuseds and witnesses and prosecuting and defence counsels, and the sheer logistics and costs entailed to ensure that the trial goes ahead smoothly on the due date. The considerations against granting bail from the outset therefore are so strong that unless exceptional circumstances are shown bail should not be granted.

In terms of the seriousness of the offence, it involves a double murder so that where convictions occur the Applicant will be staring at two life term sentences to be served. The possibility of parole in such circumstances will be pretty slim or remote and virtually non-existent. But even if the five separate abduction charges and the charge of being a member of an unlawful society are considered on their own as well, they bring the total maximum penalty to 38 years, which is still very serious. Add the circumstances of the offences and the case turns extremely nasty, violent and gruesome. The two murder victims suffered a most horrifying terrible and painful death. They were made to dance, kick each other then assaulted with timber and rifle butts, kicked, punched and struck with stones. They were made to suffer an agonizing death.

The risk of absconding in this instance in my respectful view is real. Also the risk of possible interference with witnesses if released in the circumstances is real and cannot be discounted.

In terms of the strength of the evidence against the Applicant, the more evidence is available the stronger the case for the prosecution will be. In this instance, the brief of facts provided allege that a minimum of ten witnesses have identified the Applicant as being present at the scene of the crime. It appears too that the Applicant is known to the people that had been abducted and not a stranger, which makes identification easier than if he was a stranger. It is important to bear in mind as well that the offences were alleged to have occurred in broad daylight as compared to night time when identification may not have been as easy. Further, the offences were clearly not of short duration but occurred over a long period of time and which would have assisted better and more accurate identification. Prosecution’s case therefore is not weak or the possibility of acquittal real. To the contrary the probable outcome for a conviction is a real consideration and not merely a possibility. The effect ultimately is that it raises also the risk of absconding and possibility of interference with witnesses.

It is important to bear in mind, that the nature of the offences committed was such that it is not too difficult to envisage that those who had been affected by the events most probably would have been traumatised not only physically but also emotionally and mentally as well. Witnesses to a certain extent will be quite vulnerable in my respectful view as well. Whilst there is no evidence of any expressed threats after the arrest and remand of the Applicant and no evidence also of past interference with witnesses that does not rule out the risk of such taking place if released, bearing in mind the seriousness and nature of offences he has been charged with.

There has been delay in the listing of this case for trial but I am not satisfied it can be said to be unreasonable when the circumstances and court resources, time and availability of judicial officers and legal counsels are taken into account.

I do bear in mind that he has no previous convictions and note the contents of the affidavits filed in support of his application for bail being:

- an affidavit of his wife filed 18 August 2005 offering to act as a surety;

- an affidavit of Peter Jackson Maerava filed on same date also offering to act as a surety in the event bail is granted; and

- his own affidavit in which he indicates that if released he would reside at Tasahe Ridge with his brother in law.

These however have to be balanced with the usual risks accompanying such bail applications and unfortunately I am simply not satisfied exceptional circumstances have been shown which would justify bail. The application for bail is refused.

The Court.