Regina v Lulumae [2007] SBHC 40; HCSI-CRC 24 of 2007 (23 February 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 24 of 2007

REGINA

-v-

LEONARD LULUMAE

(Mwanesalua, J.)

Hearing: 20 February 2007
Ruling: 23 February 2007

Ms. Chalmers for the Crown
M. Lawrence for the Applicant

RULING

Mwanesalua, J: This is an application for bail. The Applicant is Leonard Lulumae. He was committed for trail to the High Court on 10 November 2006 on two counts of attempted murder, two counts of intention to cause grievous harm, one count of grievous harm, one count of armed robbery and one count of burglary. He has been remanded at Rove Prison pending his trial before the High Court. His previous bail application was refused by the Magistrates’ Court. He now renews his application to this court.

His present application is based on the grounds that the date for his trial has yet to be set; that the evidence against him is weak and that he is a juvenile. The Crown opposed the application on the basis that the offences against him are serious; that the evidence against him is strong and that he is likely to abscond.

The Applicant was charged with offences under the Penal Code (Cap.26). The offences of attempted murder, armed robbery, and intention to cause grievous harm, all carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, whilst the offence of grievous harm, carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years imprisonment. It is thus obvious that the offences laid against the Applicant in the information are very serious.

The Applicant went to the King George market on the evening of 25 February 2006. On the early morning of 26 February 2006, he climbed over the perimeter wall into the premises of Far East Enterprises Limited at Ranadi. He then walked to a house occupied by Chan Wei Lan and his family. He was armed with a knife. He entered the house and saw Chan Wei Lan coming out from his room. Chan Wei Lan was stabbed with a knife at his spine. The Applicant admitted in his caution statement that the knife with which Chan Wei Lan was stabbed was his knife. Chan Wei Lan sustained serious injuries and is now paralysed and can only move about by wheelchair. The items removed from the house during this incident included a TV Screen, Microphones and 2X Decks. There is very strong prima facie evidence against the Applicant for armed robbery at this time. The evidence in support of this charge is therefore not weak as advanced on behalf of the Applicant.

The parents of the Applicant passed away in 1997. He was only in Honiara for one year when he was arrested and charged for the offences which he is currently being remanded in custody. He is single and unemployed. He took a leading role in the armed robbery which resulted in the infliction of serious injuries to Jian Chan (Jessy Chan) and Chan Wei Lan and the removal of properties from their house on 26 February 2006. Michael Pongi has expressed his desire to stand surety for the Applicant. But Michael Pongi is unemployed and his status in his community is unknown. This court is not satisfied about the financial and social integrity of Michael Pongi to stand surety for the Applicant. The Applicant is at an age where he would know that the offences on which he is being remanded are very serious, and if convicted, he is likely to receive severe sentences. This Court holds the view that the Applicant could be tempted to abscond rather than run the risk of such sentences.

The Applicant is a young person. He has been remanded in custody at a detention place for unconvicted persons at the Rove Prison by the court which committed him to stand trial at the High Court. This is lawful.[1]

Three of the Applicant’s co-accused pleaded guilty to offences laid against them at the Magistrates’ Court. They were convicted and sentenced by that court. They gave Statements to the Police and will testify for the Crown against the Applicant and his co-accused. It is likely that the Applicant would interfere with their evidence if he were to be released on bail. The imposition of a curfew on the Applicant will not prevent this risk even though he would be living far away from these witnesses.

There is no evidence on the date when the Applicant was charged. It is therefore not possible to ascertain the length of time which the Applicant has been remanded in custody to date. However, he was committed for trial to the High Court on 10 November 2006 and the information on his case was filed on 19 February 2007. This means that this case is only with this court pending trial for 5 days to this date. It is now possible to list it for directions hearing as the information had been filed.

The Applicant faces very serious charges. There is strong prima facie evidence to support the charge of armed robbery which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is likely that he would interfere with witnesses and abscond if he were to be released on bail. And this court is not satisfied that Michael Pongi is a suitable surety for the Applicant. For these reasons, bail is refused. I order accordingly.

Francis Mwanesalua
Puisne Judge

---

^[1] S.8 of the Juvenile Offenders Act (Cap.14)