Mani v Regina [2011] SBHC 153; HCSI-CRC 407 of 2011 (14 December 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Jurisdiction

WALTER MANI

v

REGINA

Date of Hearing: 2nd December 2011
Date of Judgment: 14th December 2011

Mrs. Fineanganofo for the Crown/Respondent.
Mr. Kalu for the accused/Applicant.

RULING ON BAIL APPLICATION

Apaniai, PJ:

1. Mr. Walter Mani ("applicant") has been charged with the murder of Moffat Saueha in Honiara on 9th June 2010. He has been in custody since 10th June 2010 and now applies for bail.
   
2. The applicant has filed three affidavits in support of his application, the first and second are by himself and his wife. Both these affidavits were filed on 7thOctober 2011. The third affidavit is by Dr. Sarah Brewster filed on 7th December 2011.
   
3. In their affidavits, the applicant and his wife say that they have 5 children; that they live at their own home at Gilbert Camp in Honiara; that the applicant has been in custody for approximately 15 months since arrest; that if granted bail, the applicant will reside with his family at Gilbert Camp and that his wife will act as surety for him and is willing to deposit $1,500.00 as security for the applicant's attendance at future hearings of his case.
   
4. Furthermore, Dr. Brewster, in her affidavit, says that the applicant has a chronic heart disease which will not improve; that his heart condition predisposes him to heart attacks, but that he is currently stable and if he is consistent with his medication, he should remain stable. For these reasons, the applicant submits that the application should be granted.
   
5. The applicant also submits that he is not a flight risk and there is no risk of interference with Crown witnesses. He further submits that if granted bail, he would reside with his family at Gilbert Camp and would comply with any conditions imposed. He says that his wife is prepared to become his surety to ensure that he attends court at trial.
   
6. The prosecution, however, opposes the application saying that the offence with which the applicant is charged is a very serious offence and if convicted the applicant would face a life sentence; that the evidence against the applicant is strong; that the case has already been listed for trial which will commence on 25th June 2012; that there will be interference with Crown witnesses; that there is a risk of absconding; that no reconciliation has yet been held between the applicant's family and the deceased's family and, as such, there will be tension between these two families if the applicant is released. As to Dr. Brewster's affidavit regarding his medical condition, the prosecution says that the applicant has had the condition before his custody and that all that he needed to do is to be consistent in taking his medication.
   
7. The question as to whether or not a person charged with murder should be granted bail has been considered previously in a number of cases in this court. I refer in particular to the cases of R v Kwaiga[1] ("Kwaiga"), Kelesiwasi v R[2] ("Kelesiwasi") and Taisia v DPP[3] ("Taisia") where these principles were recently stated.
   

8. The principles established in these cases are that the seriousness of a charge is in itself not a reason for refusing bail[4] and that persons accused of murder may be given bail in appropriate circumstances unless there is evidence to show that there is a risk of flight or a risk of interference with Crown witnesses or that there is a likelihood that the applicant might re-offend if released from custody. Furthermore, the courts have held that the deciding factor in a bail application by a person accused of murder or treason is whether or not the accused will appear at the trial date.

9. Applying these principles to the present case, is there a real likelihood that the accused will abscond? Of course the charge is a very serious one and that the prosecution case appears to be quite strong. No doubt these are strong factors suggesting the likelihood of absconding. However, having regard to the medical condition of the applicant, can it realistically be said that the applicant will abscond without risking his own life? I am sure the applicant appreciates the risk to his own life if he absconds or evades trial.

10. I am satisfied that this is a case where the applicant poses no risk of flight or of re-offending or even of interference with Crown witnesses. He has been in custody for the last 18 months since his arrest on 10th June 2010. While it has been said that his trial will commence on 25th June 2012, there is no guarantee the trial will commence on that day in the light of the current heavy criminal case load.

11. The right to a speedy trial of a person charged with a criminal offence is a right that is protected under the Constitution and until such time as the person is convicted of, or has pleaded guilty to, the charge, he is presumed innocent. Taking into account this presumption of innocence, I see no justification for putting an accused person in custody awaiting trial for such long period of time as in the present case. Delays caused by reasons which are not of the accused's own making are not good excuses for holding the accused in custody while waiting for his trial however serious the charge may be and however strong the chance of conviction is. Great injustice would be done to an accused person if, having been remanded in custody for a very long time on suspicion of him having committed an offence, he is found not guilty of the offence in the end.

12. I am satisfied that this is a case where bail can be granted but subject to strict bail conditions. I therefore grant bail to the applicant subject to the following conditions:-

[1] The applicant is to reside with his wife and children at Gilbert Camp in Honiara until trial.

[2] The applicant must not go outside of the boundaries of Honiara without an order of the court.

[3] The applicant must not communicate in any manner whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly, with any of the prosecution witnesses.

[4] The applicant must report to Naha Police between 8am and 4pm each Monday, Wednesday and Friday every week.

[5] The applicant must stay at his residence at Gilbert Camp at night between 6pm to 6am each and every day of the week, and must not to leave his residence between those times without the order of the court.

[6] Mrs. Ethel Silamai Mani, the surety, must pay into court the sum of $2,000.00 as soon as possible as security for the attendance of the applicant at future hearings of the case.

[7] The applicant shall not be released until Mrs. Ethel Silamai Mani has paid the said sum of $2,000.00.

[8] In the event of a failure to comply with any of these conditions, these conditions shall be vacated and all police officers are hereby authorised to re-arrest the applicant and take him into custody forthwith and keep him there until trial or further order of the court.

THE COURT

_______________________
James Apaniai
Puisne Judge

---

^[1] CRC 334 of 2004
^[2] CRC 24 of 2004
^[3] [2001] SBHC 73 (9 October 2001)
^[4] See also Blackstone Criminal Practice 1992, at p. 1026.