Regina v Taurikeni [2011] SBHC 112; HCSI-CRC 263 of 2011 (18 August 2011)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)

Criminal Case Number 263 of 2011

REGINA

-V-

DAVID TAURIKENI

HEARING: 12 AUGUST 2011
RULING: 18 AUGUST 2011

H. Fugui for the Applicant
R. Iomea for the Respondent/Crown

Palmer CJ.

The applicant, David Taurikeni, is charged with the offence of rape. He was arrested sometime in November 2010 and released on bail on 13th December 2010. Six conditions were imposed and very reasonable conditions I might add, to secure his attendance at court. I do not need to set these out for a copy of the conditions is attached to the written submissions of Counsel Iomea dated 29 July 2011.

Having absconded bail it is unlikely that bail will be granted again[1]. In fact this is one of the grounds for refusing bail for an imprisonable or serious offence, unless good reason for not answering to his bail terms is shown, or that it would not be appropriate in the circumstances of the case to remand him in custody.

In this particular instance, I am not satisfied reasonable cause had been shown for failing to answer to his bail at the time and date appointed. Court orders are to be taken seriously and not flouted at the whim of the accused, simply because he thinks that it is alright or relying on what someone else tells him, and then pleads mistaken belief, when there can be no mistake about the clarity of the bail conditions imposed and agreed to, for before any condition can be imposed, the court must satisfy itself that they are reasonable. There is nothing to suggest that any of the terms imposed were unreasonable or impracticable.

The accused was not unrepresented and could have found out information about his case by contacting his lawyer, or, appearing in court on the said date and finding out the status of his case. The excuse given is a rather lame attempt to shift responsibility to someone else. Pleading ignorance, or that he did not know, or saying that someone told him that everything is or will be alright, is inexcusable for he is answerable to the court and no one else. He has no one else to blame but himself. Resources and court time have been wasted unnecessarily to have him re-arrested.

For the following reasons, bail is refused. This offence is serious and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. If convicted he will be required to serve a lengthy period in prison; the risk of flight is high.

Secondly, the strength of the Crown's case against him is very strong. The allegation against him is that the offence was committed in the presence of an eye witness, the Grandmother of the victim. As well there is contemporaneous evidence and evidence of recent complaint by other witnesses, which raise the bar of flight risk.

Also the likelihood of re-offending, as well as the potential of interference with witnesses, cannot be ruled out in the light of the circumstances of the offence. In terms of the likelihood of answering bail he had shown that he cannot be trusted, for even when specific conditions were imposed, including having a surety put up by a close relative in the sum of $800, coupled with residence requirements and restrictions of movement, and agreeing to be bound, he was prepared to abscond.

I have listened carefully to submissions by Counsel Fugui but find little difference to the previous bail conditions and which show that this time round he will attend court for the remaining stages of the proceedings.

On the issue of delay, in the event of a conviction, that will go in his favour. Priority however should be given to this case and similar cases for hearing as soon as possible.

Application for bail refused.

The Court.

---

^[1] Lambley v. The Queen (1989) 40 A Crim R 430.