Regina v Saea [2015] SBHC 114; HCSI-CRC 76 of 2015 (23 June 2015)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(PALMER CJ.)

Criminal Case Numbers 200 of 2015 and 201 of 2015

REGINA

-V-

Harold Saea and Sesford Sikua

Hearing: 17th June 2015
Ruling: 23rd June 2015

H. Lawry for the Applicant Harold Saea
S. Valenitabua and B. Alasia for Applicant Sesford Sikua
J. Naigulevu for the Respondent.

Palmer CJ:

1. The applicants have been both charged with the murder of Godfrey Bosa ("the Deceased") at Dudula village, North East Guadalcanal on the 1st March 2011.
   
2. Both Applicants were arrested on separate occasions, Harold Saea ("Saea") in June 2013 and Sesford Sikua ("Sesford") on 10 June 2014. Both have been in custody since their arrest.
   
3. Saea was committed to the High Court to stand trial on 11 November 2013. Sesford was committed much later after his arrest in June 2014.
   
4. Both now apply for bail.
   
5. I will deal with their applications separately. Firstly, Sesford's bail application. There are two primary reasons advanced for bail in his case apart from the normal requirements for bail having been fulfilled. First, is the issue of delay in the hearing of the case and secondly, that the case against him, taken at its highest, is weak.
   
6. First, the issue of delay does not fall within the category of exceptional circumstances. This case had previously been given a trial date and would have been heard but for the fact that it was considered appropriate to await the committal of other co-accuseds who were still at large. For that reason it was agreed by consent to vacate the original date fixed for another date later. The issue of timing is a matter which the case listing committee of the High Court will consider at its meetings to determine when this case can now be listed for hearing. While there are only few judges now at the High Court to hear cases and some delay will be expected that is not an exceptional ground for granting bail.
   
7. On the issue of strength of Crown's case, taken at its highest, I am of the view that this does bring this case within that category after having reviewed the evidence as set out in witness statements that have been disclosed. As rightly stated by learned Counsel Mr. Valenitabua for the accused, there were only two witnesses from their statements who implicated the accused at the scene of the crime that afternoon, those being Rosalyn Kaoni ("Rosalyn") and Luisa Vatina ("Luisa").
   
8. Rosalyn saw him standing with the others at the scene on arrival at Dudula village. She also saw him hitting Tumbara and Albert Tanganipari with a round piece of iron two feet in length. I note that those two individuals have not provided any statements for prosecution whether to confirm or not this piece of evidence.
   
9. The only other relevant piece of evidence came from Luisa's statement but this is more in the form of hearsay evidence in that she merely recounted what Tumbara had told her the next day as to the identification of the person who had cut his leg. This would be hearsay if Tumbara is not going to be called as a witness by prosecution.
   
10. There is no direct evidence that links him with any injuries to the body of the Deceased or being directly involved in the attack on him. Prosecution's case relies on joint enterprise, which essentially requires some common intention or plan and purpose to commit the offence. While there is evidence of an assault on two other persons there is little evidence to link him with the injuries sustained by the Deceased.
    
11. I agree with the assessment of Mr. Valenitabua that taken at its highest, Prosecution's case in regards to the murder charge against this accused is weak. That tips the balance of risk in terms of whether bail should be granted or not in favour of this accused. Having said that it is important to balance that with the other requirements of bail and other matters raised in opposition by prosecution whether these will secure his attendance and other matters of concern to the fair and proper trial of this case.
    
12. Having considered those matters I am satisfied bail should be granted with conditions. Those will be specified in the orders to be issued.
    
13. In contrast, Saea's case is different and for the same reasons but on stronger grounds, bail was refused in the application of co-accused John Sikua in Regina v. John Sikua[1] ("John Sikua's Case"), his application should be refused. I do not need to repeat what I said in John Sikua's Case, or, reiterate the grounds on which bail has been granted in Sesford's case. Suffice to point out that it cannot be said that Crown's case against Saea is weak. To the contrary, it is strong and overwhelming, there is clear direct evidence which links him to the attack on the Deceased that afternoon. There were at least six witnesses who saw him at the scene and described his actions and movements at that critical time which directly implicate him in the murder of the Deceased.
    
14. There were two persons who were identified as having a substantial contribution to the attacks on the Deceased that afternoon and one of them is this accused.
    
15. I am not satisfied exceptional reasons have been shown in his case which would warrant bail to be granted in this instance. For the same reasons stated in refusing bail in the co-accused, John Sikua's application, bail is also refused in this instance.
    
16. In Sesford's case, the following conditions are to be imposed:
    
    • (i) A bond of $1,000.00 is deposited in cash;
    • (ii) That Michel Sonitavea also act as surety for the accused with a recognizance of $1,000.00;
    • (iii) That the accused resides at Mr. Sonitavea's house at Buburu Ridge in Honiara during bail;
    • (iv) That he reports to the Central Police Station in Honiara every Fridays between the hours of 6:00 am – 6:00 pm;
    • (v) That he does not interfere with any of the witnesses for Prosecution including not communicating with any of them;
    • (vi) That he remains within the City boundary and does not go beyond Henderson area in the east or White River in the western side of the City;
    • (vii) Liberty to apply on two days' notice for any amendments or changes to these orders.
      

Orders of the Court.

1. Deny bail for Harold Saea.
2. Grant bail for Sesford Sikua with conditions as set out in this ruling.
   

The Court.

---

^[1] Regina v. John Sikua CRC 293 of 2014, 7 November 2014