Regina v Manedetea [2017] SBHC 128; HCSI-CRC 353 of 2014 (8 May 2017)

Regina

V

Alphy Manedetea

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Criminal Jurisdiction
Criminal Case Number 353 of 2014

Date of Hearing: 21^st April 2017
Date of Ruling: 8^th May 2017

Counsels for the Crown: Dalipanda. B with Kekou I
Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Lawry H. with Manaka M

RULING ON CASE SUBMISSION

Kouhota PJ:

The accused, Alphy Manedetea, was charged with murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal code. The prosecution alleged that he murdered one, Noel Manele Rongo, on 11^th November 2010. Another person charged with the murder of the same deceased, Mr. Stanley Gitoa, had pleaded guilty to the murder charge and is now serving a sentence of imprisonment for the offence.

The accused Manedetea was not jointly charged with Mr Gitoa but at the commencement of the trial, the prosecution applied to amend the statement of offence to be read with section 21 of the Penal Code. The particulars of the offence however, remained unchanged and reads, ‘That Alpha Manedetea of Nguvia village, Guadalcanal Province, at Tetere in East Guadalcanal, Guadalcanal Province, on 11^th November 2010, did murder Noel Manele Rongo.’

The prosecution called three witnesses who gave evidence under oath in support of the charge against the accused. Statements of five other witnesses were tendered with consent as well as a photo album of photographs taken by police of the crime scene. The autopsy report by Doctor Roy Marata was also tendered with consent. All tendered statements, photographs and the autopsy report formed part of the evidence before the court.

At the close of the prosecution case, the defence counsel made a no case submission on behalf of the accused on the basis that there is no evidence against the accused and on the basis of section 136 of the Evidence Act, 2009.

In a trial before the High Court, section 269(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that, “when the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution has been concluded, and the statement or evidence (if any) of the accused person before the committing court has been given in evidence, the court, if it considers that there is no evidence that the accused or anyone of several accused committed the offence, shall, after hearing, if necessary, any arguments which the public prosecutor or advocate for the prosecution or the defence may desire to submit, record a finding of not guilty.”

This provision of section 269(1) of the CPC have comprehensively been deal with by the both High Court and the Court of Appeal in the past. In Regina v. Tome [2004] SBCA 13; commenting on the meaning of section 269(1) the Court of Appeal said, “this must mean that if there is some evidence that the accused committed the offence the case must proceed to final determination by a tribunal of facts.”

The Court of Appeal went on and stated at page2, “It is clear that the general law, enshrine in section 269(1), requires a different test to be applied when ruling on a no case submission from which would be applied in determining guilt or otherwise at the end of the trial. The distinction must also be maintained when the trial is by a judge alone.”

The Court of Appeal in Regina v. Tome also referred to the statement in Doney V The Queen [1990] HCA 51, 171 CLR 207, where it was said that, inconsistencies in evidence (whether within the testimony of a witness or as between witnesses) are not relevant at the no case stage. The Court must take the prosecution evidence at its highest and that means accepting the evidence most favourable to the prosecution when determining whether an accused has a case to answer. The test then is not whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether there is evidence capable of supporting a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

When an offence is committed section 21 of the Penal Code set out persons who are deemed to have committed the offence. They include;

(a) every person who actually does the act or makes the omission which constituted the offence;
(b) every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence;
(c) every person who aids or abets another person to commit the offence;
(d) any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence;

Having amended the statement of offence to include the words, as read with section 21 of the Penal Code, it is obvious that the prosecution intended to rely on the provisions of section 21 of the Penal Code as part of its case. In its opening address, prosecution states at paragraph 1 of page 3, his direct participation, omissions and subsequent met up with Gitoa immediately after the incident is what the prosecution will rely on to show that the accused, Alphy, had aided and abetted the prisoner, Gitoa, in the assault and subsequent murder of the deceased.

I remind myself that the charge against the accused is murder and the onus is on the prosecution to adduce evidence to prove the elements of that offence.

The medical report confirmed the condition directly leading to death of the deceased was multiple chest injuries. The condition was consistent with the evidence of what Gitoa did to the deceased with the brick however, there was no evidence that the accused Manedetea aided or abetted Gitoa when he took the brick and smashed it on the deceased chest. Even if the prosecution relied on section 21 of the Penal Code, for a case to be made out against the accused or to prove him guilty, the prosecution has to adduce evidence that the accused contemplate that Gitoa is going to murder the deceased otherwise they have adduce evidence that the injury resulting in the death of the deceased were caused by the accused Manedetea.

At the close of the prosecution case, and without assessing the creditability of the witnesses and their evidences, all that the prosecution evidences were, was that they saw the accused Mr. Alphy Manedetea present and assaulted the deceased, however, there was no evidence of whether the punches and kicks landed on the deceased or caused any injuries which led to the death of the deceased.

The charged against the accused is murder, hence it is necessary that prosecution must adduce evidences to support the charge including evidence that the accused had the malice aforethought to cause the death of the deceased, in other words, that he had the necessary intention to cause the death of the deceased or grievous bodily harm and such evidence must be capable of supporting a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of murder

The prosecution has failed to adduce any such evidence hence I find the accused not guilty and he must be acquitted.

Having found as such it is not necessary to consider the second part of the defence submission on the No case to answer submission. One can sympathised with prosecution but this is a clear case where police had done a very poor investigation making it difficult for the Crown to properly present its case.

The court

Emmanuel Kouhota
Puisne Judge