Lanaho v Regina [2005] SBHC 93; HCSI-CRC 324 of 2005 (19 August 2005)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 324 of 2005

JOSHUA LAUNAHO

-v-

REGINA

Date of Hearing: 15^th August 2005.
Date of Ruling: 19^th August 2005.

S. Lawrence for the Applicant.
P. Bannister for the Crown.

RULING

Kabui, J.: This is an application for bail filed by Joshua Launaho, a co-accused, in a murder incident committed on 11^th December 2004 at Tumunangela village, east Guadalcanal. The deceased was a woman. Following this incident, Joshua Launaho and Willie Tarauva were arrested and charged for the murder of the deceased. He has been in custody since his arrest on 13^th December 2004. He has been committed to stand his trial in the High Court on a date to be fixed. He wants to be released on bail whilst awaiting his trial in the High Court. He is the applicant in this case.

The evidence against him.

The applicant is being accused of the murder of the deceased because it is alleged that he gave the unopened bottle of beer to William Tarauva with which William Tarauva struck the deceased on her head, causing her death. In other words, he supplied the weapon used by William Tarauva for an unlawful purpose, namely, striking the deceased on her head which led to her death. Both William Tarauva and the applicant were members of a group of men who attacked Mathew Lee Ngongoli. The deceased being the sister of Mathew Lee Ngongoli who was being attacked, intervened by attempting to shield her brother from attack by members of the applicant’s group and in so doing was struck by William Tarauva. Initially, Mathew Lee Ngongoli was the intended object of the attack but attention shifted to the deceased because of her intervention. In his caution statement, William Tarauva, denied being given any bottle of beer by the applicant. He said he had two bottles in his hands, one was about empty and the other one unopened. This appears to be consistent with Stephen Leua’s story. There is no evidence to show that the applicant had been interviewed under caution and made a statement or not. The evidence of the alleged fact that he supplied the weapon being a full beer bottle to William Tarauva to use against the deceased is conflicting. According to Lilian Ririgo, she saw William Tarauva grabbed the bottle from the applicant and held it. This evidence seems to suggest that the applicant did not give it to William Tarauva voluntarily. This is confirmed by Stephen Panga who said William Tarauva took a bottle of beer from the applicant. All this said would be consistent with William Tarauva’s caution statement supported by Stephen Leua’s story. Directly opposed to this is the evidence of Thomas Kobea, Hilda Leta, Patrick Pete, Mathew Lee Ngongoli and Naomi Koethivoa. That is, each of them saw the applicant giving a full bottle of beer to William Tarauva with which he allegedly struck the deceased.

Nature of the offence and assessment of the evidence.

Clearly, murder is a very serious offence. The evidence against the applicant at its highest is prima facie. It is however conflicting in nature. What the truth is will depend largely on the trial judge’s assessment of all the evidence at least at the end of the Crown’s case if there is a no case to answer at that stage of the trial. The evidence against the applicant cannot be said to be overwhelming in nature in that regard although it cannot be disregarded. Where then does this application stand in terms of granting bail being requested by the applicant? Granting bail is of course a matter for the discretion of the Court.

Factors to be considered by the Court.

As has been said, murder is a serious offence. The evidence is prima facie in nature and cannot be said with any degree of certainty that it will lead to conviction of murder. The chance of conviction for murder or not is equal for aiding and abetting. The scale, however, can easily tilt either way. The risk of flight if bail is granted was said to be non-existent in that the applicant in his affidavit promised that he would appear in Court for his trial. The applicant has no previous convictions and so there is no previous history of antecedents to go by in assessing his disposition in terms of risk of flight. He has a family and a home. His wife is alive. He has six children. He therefore has a community tie. There is no evidence to show that he may commit further offences if he is released on bail. The question of interfering with witnesses is relevant to consider although that consideration could be made a condition of bail if bail is granted. Moses Reani has agreed to be a surety for the applicant. Moses Reani is a police officer and a close blood relative.

Decision of the Court.

I have come to the conclusion that the applicant should be granted bail. I believe he will not abscond when he is on bail. I have accepted Moses Reani to be his surety in the sum of $500.00. He is a police officer and a close relative of the applicant. Moses Reani must enter into and the sign the recognizance in the sum of $500.00 before the applicant is released from custody. I have considered imposing as a condition the need to report to the Tetere Police Station from time to time but in view of his surety being a police officer and a close relative, I think that is unnecessary. I expect Moses Reani to visit the applicant regularly at his home to ensure that the applicant is at home and continues to reside there until his trial. The conditions I impose though are that the applicant must not interfere with any Crown witnesses pending his trial and must not leave the Island of Guadalcanal whilst awaiting his trial in the High Court. Bail is therefore granted on these conditions. I order accordingly.

F.O. Kabui
Puisne Judge