Regina v Leong Fox Folomae [2007] SBHC 4; HCSI-CRC 549 of 2005 (8 March 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No: 549 of 2005

REGINA

– v-

LEONG FOX FOLOMAE

Dates of Hearing: 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 March 2007
Date of Judgment: 7 March 2007
Date of Reasons for Judgment: 8 March 2007

Mr Unagui and Mr Talasasa for the Crown
Mr Lawrence for the accused

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Cameron PJ

1	At the end of the prosecution evidence the defence submitted that the accused, charged with murder, had no case to answer. The Crown did not wish to be heard on the application, except to say the decision was a matter of law.
2	On 7 March 2007 I granted the application and entered a verdict of Not Guilty to the charge, and duly acquitted and discharged the defendant. I now give my reasons.
3	The case concerns the murder of Mr Nicholas Constantine at the business premises of Sullivans. The deceased was a director of the company which operated from the premises.
4.	The Crown case was that the murder occurred on the evening of 12 October 2004. The body of the deceased was discovered the next morning. He was lying on the ground inside the premises with two fatal stab wounds. A hat was recovered near his foot, which became exhibit 8 in the trial. I will say more about the hat shortly.
5.	The evidence was that the accused had worked as a driver for Sullivans up until around the middle of 2004. He was then dismissed, and was not with the company as at the date of the murder.
6.	The reason for his dismissal was his implication in the theft of money from the company, for which he was arrested by the Police. There is no evidence about whether he was subsequently charged for the theft.
7.	Three other employees of the company were dismissed at around the same time as the accused because of their alleged involvement in theft.
8.	The Crown case was clearly that the motive for the killing was disaffection on the part of the accused because of his sacking.
9.	There is no evidence linking the accused to the murder. Two witnesses described a person leaving the Sullivans building in the evening of 12 October 2004, when the killing is said by the Crown to have taken place. One of the witnesses described that person as in his 30’s and having white (which I take to mean blond) hair. The uncontroverted evidence was that the accused was born in 1984, so he would have been 19 or 20 years old in 2004. When he appeared in Court his hair was dark, and there was no evidence about the colour of his hair in 2004.
10.	The other witness said he did not see the face of the person he saw leaving the building.
11.	As to the hat found near the foot of the deceased, there was some evidence suggesting that this may have belonged to a niece of the accused, that niece having stayed with the parents of the accused in 1998. I surmise that the Crown wished the inference to be drawn that by virtue of that family connection the accused somehow got hold of that hat and left it at the murder scene.
12.	The evidence falls well short of establishing that the hat originally belonged to the accused’s niece.
13.	It is true there appears to be a name inscribed on the inside of the hat which seems to read "marrisak". However, the grandfather of the accused’s niece said that her name was in fact spelt Marryza Kula, and spelt the christian name is this way to the Court.
14.	Also, without evidence from the niece, or at least someone who recognised the hat and its inscription as that belonging to the niece, I am unable to make any findings as to its ownership.
15.	Even if the hat had been that of the accused’s niece, the evidence falls well short of establishing that it was a hat worn by the accused at around the date of the murder or indeed at any time.
16.	I conclude that there is no Crown evidence capable of establishing that the accused was linked to the killing.
BY THE COURT