Roni v Regina [2006] SBHC 9; HCSI-CRC 121 of 2006 (2 May 2006)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 121 of 2006

WALTER RONI

–v-

REGINA

BROWN, J.

Date of Hearing: 2 May 2006
Date of Ruling: 2 May 2006

Director of Public Prosecution Mr. John Cauchi for the Crown
Mr .G. A. Benn for the Applicant

RULING

APPLICATION FOR BAIL

Brown, J.: This man comes before the court seeking bail following charges, one of murder and two of abduction arising out of the death of a man Francis Gemo of Mbiti village, Weathercoast on about the 27th May 2003; Francis Gemo’s abduction leading to his death, the abduction of an older woman Kasele Oli, also subsequently killed.

The defendant was charged following his arrest on the 4th of December 2005 and has been remanded in custody since the time.

Mr. Benn has raised a number of arguments which are set forth in his written submissions. He has sought to show 'exceptional circumstances' and raised a number of matters which he says in their totality amount to such circumstances.

He was anxious to show that the absence of police witness’ statement was a vital failing in the Crown case in its opposition to this bail application.

The fact that investigations into the apparent death by beating of this man Francis Gemo and the killing of the old woman Oli in the circumstances described in the statement of facts are still continuing (for other named persons, associates of these defendant at the time are still at large) and that the investigation is made more difficult by the distance and in-accessibility of the Weathercoast (referred to by Mr. Benn) does in my view go to answer Mr. Benn’s argument that there is no evidence here sufficient for the Crown to assert matters in opposition to the bail application. Whether 'evidence' is sufficient to put this applicant on is trial is not the issue on a bail application. But the particulars of the offence alleged must illustrate the material issues which the Crown needs to prove on this man’s trial. They do in this case.

Clearly the obligation is on the State as I have said previously under section 3 of the Constitution to seek to ensure 'security of the person and protection of the law' which applies to simple villagers on the Weathercoast and equally to this applicant. I am minded to consider what message the sending back by these Court, of this man alleged to have carried out these acts including murder of Gemo and the abduction of Oli leading to her death would give to these simple village witnesses when the very reason apparent in the statement of facts for the alleged behaviour by this applicant was that these person were allegedly to be 'spears' or spies or witnesses against him or his group. The argument of Mr. Been about absence of evidence or non-disclosure at this time on this bail application has no merit for the brief facts clearly state the particular of the offence giving rise to these charges. It is not a rule of law that witnesses’ statement need be tended in these bail applications. The investigation is ongoing. It would be trite to say that a defendant should be given bail if the Crown investigation has not concluded and witness’s statements have not been served. In this country at this time after the lawless period especially recently about Honiara resulting in such burning, looting and threatened assaults, the State may claim some time to follow up all these breaches of the peace.

I agreed that the Crown case is very strong when one has regard to the statement of facts.

I am not satisfied the matter raised by Mr. Benn are such as to be classified as 'exceptional circumstances' and even grouped together they gain no further force.

I am aware of the principles argued by Mr. Benn, but for these reasons I am not prepared to exercise my discretion to grant bail.

THE COURT