Bote v Regina [2007] SBHC 55; HCSI-CRC 132 of 2007 (1 June 2007)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 132 of 2007

BETWEEN:

JOHN BOTE
Applicant

AND:

REGINA
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 21 May 2007
Date of Judgment: 1 June 2007

Mr Evans for the Applicant
Ms Kleinig for Respondent

DECISION

Cameron PJ

1	Mr Bote applies for bail. He is charged with the murder of John Beku (Tova) on 27 May 2003. He also faces charges of abduction, arson and assault causing actual bodily harm, which arise from events which occurred at about the same time.
2	Mr Bote has been in custody on some or all of the charges since early February 2007. Despite a number of appearances in the Central Magistrates Court, no date for a preliminary inquiry has yet been set.
3	The principal argument advanced for bail is that the prosecution case against Mr Bote is weak. Mr Evans points out that the key prosecution witness in relation to the murder charge is an Ephraim Rongomeilepo, and that his statement is silent as to whether Mr Bote was present when John Beku was killed.
4	Ms Kleinig for the Crown counters this by pointing to an extract from E Rongomeilepo’s statement to the Police dated 11 August 2005, made against the background that Mr Bote was a known associate of a Ronnie Cawa. It says: "I went with the first group to Ogio. When we arrived the two men from Veravaolu who I mentioned before led us to a house. I don’t know the names of these two men. Willie Meto and John Bote [the accused] went inside. Then I heard one shot and then Willie Meto and John Bote led out John Beku [the victim], Wedily and Rilon. They were ordered to get down on the ground. I could see that John Beku had been shot in the lower leg. Ronnie [Cawa] told him to get up but he couldn’t. Then I saw quite clearly as I was standing very close Ronnie shoot John Beku once through the top of his head. John Beku was killed immediately."
5	Ms Kleinig says that this account would amount to prima facie evidence that the accused went into the house where the alleged victim was, gunfire was heard from the outside of the house, that the accused was one of two men who led the alleged victim out of that house, and that he was then shot by Ronnie Cawa, an associate of the accused. Ms Kleinig notes that there is no indication from the statement that there was any significant delay between the victim being led outside and then being shot. She therefore submits that inferentially this witness is saying that the shooting took place in the presence of the accused.
6	I agree with the Crown’s submission, and consider that on the basis of the quoted extract there would be prima facie evidence of Mr Bote having committed the offence of murder either as a principal offender or as part of an unlawful joint enterprise.
7	Mr Evans made a further point relating to the fact that E Rongomeilepo is a witness for the Crown in a trial currently being heard by this Court in which a Mathias Pese was the victim (Regina v Mathias Pese - CRC 594 of 2005) Mr Evans understood that it was likely that this Court would rule in favour of a no case to answer submission based at least in part on the alleged unreliability of this witness. He therefore says that the Court should take note of this and be wary about any statements this same person has made in Mr Bote’s case.
8	It transpires that the learned Judge in that case has ruled that there is a case to answer (Ruling 21 May 2007), and at this stage no credibility findings have been made in respect of the Crown witnesses. Therefore there is nothing for me to take into account in relation to Pese’s case.
9	Because of the seriousness of a charge of murder, exceptional circumstances are necessary before bail will be granted. I am not satisfied that any such circumstances exist in this case.
10	Mr Evans also made submissions about the strength of the Crown case in respect of the other charges the accused faces, but it is not necessary for me to consider these given my view on the murder charge.
11	Mr Evans also brought to my attention the personal circumstances of the accused and the fact that his brother is prepared to have him live at his house should he be granted bail. In addition, the brother is prepared to act as a surety for the accused. However, these circumstances do not persuade me that bail ought to be granted.
12	Mr Evans complains about the alleged slowness of the prosecution in this case, particularly in the provision of witness statements, and consequently the absence of a date for the preliminary inquiry. The fixing of such a date is of course a matter for the Magistrate’s Court, which is monitoring this case on a regular basis. I am satisfied that the progress of this prosecution is not such that delay in itself has become a reason for considering bail.
13	The application for bail is declined.
BY THE COURT