Regina v Talamate [2014] SBHC 50; HCSI-CRC 443 of 2013 (12 May 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Maina, J)

Criminal Jurisdiction

CRC 443 of 2013

REGINA

–v-

ELIAKIM TALAMATE & ZUBULON VEA

Date of Hearing: 11th March 2014
Date of Judgment: 12th March 2014

For Respondent: Ms Sufaásia
For 1st Accused: Mr. Fugui
For 2nd Accused: Mr. Lapi

RULING ON APPLICATION TO ADJOURN TRIAL OF A CASE

Maina J:

The trial for the accuses on the charges of rape continues this week and at the end of the PW4's evidence, prosecution applied to the court to generally adjourn this trial as the prosecution is not able to locate a witness.

The Prosecution did not give further reasons for adjournment than just to say that "prosecution is not able to locate a witness".

The defence Counsels objected the application and tendered in court a submission on the objection to further adjournment the trial of this case. Among the reasons for the objection:

• This is a matter recorded back to 2005
• Earliest statement was recorded on 2nd April 2005
• Why this matter has taken this long before it come to court in 2013
• This raises issues with that long and whether justice is done to the accuses.
• It is approximately 8 years delay and such a period of delay is excessively and beyond reasonable time for an accused to have waited.
  

The trial for this matter was to commence on 4th March 2014, but the witness (victim) was not available and a warrant of arrest was issued and trial was adjourned to 6th March 2014. Trial was not able to take off until the next day 7th March 2014.

On the introduction of the prosecution case they informed the court they have the witnesses but one has not yet located. No explanation to the court if summon was served on the witness nor any other reasons but only that "prosecution is not able to locate a witness".

When commenting on the objection for adjournment, counsel for the crown said that crown has proceeded with its case and for the purpose of justice; the crown has to properly complete its case and the defence to present their cases.

The court has discretion to accept or not to accept the prosecution's application for adjournment. But it cannot just grant adjournment because the prosecution asks for it. The prosecution must satisfy the court that the situation warrant such an adjournment and the court must also take into account that such is also fair to the defendants.

The alleged offence was in 2005 and trial for this case just started in 2014 or about 8 - 9 years. The defence describes such a period of delay is excessively and beyond reasonable time for an accused to have waited.

I noted the attitude of the first witness (victim) when this trial should commence she left and went to Isabel Province.

And I would agree with the defence's argument that adjourning the case generally because the prosecution is unable to locate a witness would add to the already excessively delay of the accuses' case. And to adjourn this case because the prosecution just cannot locate witness is not a good reason to grant an adjournment for this case.

Therefore, the application to generally adjourn this trial is not granted.

..........................................................
Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge