Regina v Nauluam [2017] SBHC 130; HCSI-CRC 372 of 2015 (27 November 2017)

REGINA

V

PATTERSON GEORGE NAULUAM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Jurisdiction

(KOUHOTA PJ)

Criminal Case Number 372 of 2015

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

Date of Judgment 27^th November 2017

Counsels for the Crown: Kelesi. A

Counsel for the Accused: Aupai. S

Judgment

Kouhota PJ

The accused Patterson George Nauluam was charge with 2 counts of Murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code. By information filed with the High Court on 21^st December 2015, the prosecution alleged that on the 20^th February 2015, at Leru village Russell Islands he murdered Betty Lolowia Teomae and Jocelyn Kouti Teomae. The accused pleaded not guilty to both charges essentially putting the burden on the state to prove the allegations against him.

Friday 20^th February 2015 was a day just like any other day at Leru village Russell Islands in the Central Province but what happened in the evening of that Friday was something that can only be captured in the imagination or scenes from a movie. The facts may make dramatic reading but this no Hollywood drama. It is a real case of a man who brutally killed his mother and sister seconds in between.

We do not often hear of murder cases where a man would viciously kill his mother and sister by cutting open their skull over a trivial matter. The brief facts of this case are; in the afternoon of Friday 20^th February 2015, the accused Mr. Patterson George Nauluam asked his mother Jocelyn Kouti Teomae and his sister Betty Lolovi for $10 to recharge his mobile phone or as commonly known in Solomon Islands to top up his mobile phone. His sister Betty Lolovi Teomae said they don’t have any money or words to that effect. Unfortunately she did not realised, that apart from her scream when she was cut with a bush the knife those would be her last words. Seconds later her skull was split open with a sharp bush knife and she died instantly. The killer was her own brother Mr. Patterson George Nualuam. Their mother Jocelyn Kouti Teomae noticed what happened and intervened but her motherly intervention also resulted in her skull been split open with the same bush knife that spilt open her daughter’s skull just moments earlier. The incident turned the Friday evenings tranquillity of Leru village in the Russell islands, into a black Friday.

One of Joycelyn’s sons Jacob Stanley was around and witnessed this family tragedy. He was called as the first prosecution witness and re-told the horrors.

The evidence showed that the accused had cut each victims several times causing serious injuries to their upper bodies and splitting open their skulls exposing their brains. After this he went back into their house and shut himself in his room. The fact that the accused killed his mother and sister was not disputed. The crucial issue is whether he had the malice aforethought when he cause the death of his mother and sister.

Out of the 6 prosecution witnesses one is his brother, one his sister and one his uncle. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses described what happened on the day of the incident and the accused’s behaviour before and after the killing incident. They describe him as a normal person who live a normal village life and who would participated in community activities. His brother, sister and uncle who gave evidence described him as a normal person but also stated that he gets angry if he asked for something and did not get it and gets angry over food. They told the court of past instances where he has behaved abnormally. These includes an incident where he burnt down his sister’s house at Tasahe B because he said all that she and her husband were feeding him with every day was taiyo (locally canned tuna flakes) and rice and another incident which he poured poisonous chemical in his uncle’s water tank at Leru village. There was also evidence that he had assaulted his sister in the past and that he attempted suicide in 2009. The evidence showed that after killing his mother and sister he did not ran away but went back into the house and shut himself in his room. The prosecution witnesses’ evidence were not contested. I accept the evidence as creditable and true.

One of the crucial witness in this case is Doctor Paul Orotaloa, the Consultant Psychiatrist at the National Referral hospital in Honiara. He gave evidence on oath and his report containing the assessment of psychological condition of the accused was also tendered as evidence by consent.

Doctor Orotaloa’s evidence was that the accused was diagnosed with schizophrenia since 2003. Wikipedia stated that schizophrenia is a serious mental illness characterised by hallucinations, delusions, and psychosis. Doctor Orotaloa stated that despite regular medication in the form of monthly injections the accused continues to have on-going delusions as well as hallucinatory experience.

The doctor in his report stated that accused denied his act being influence by any of his psychotic but went on to explain that it was out of a long frustration with his family members that he planned to kill his mum and sister. The doctor however, said that the content of his psychotic experience were grandiose in nature involving him having power to kill anyone and believe he could kill the whole world by 2025. In his interview with the doctor the accused told the doctor that he hear voices talking to him about his extraordinary power to kill.

The doctor went on to say that he might not experience specific instruction from his hallucinations to kill his family members but the fact his delusion of grandeur involved having the power to kill anyone, his tendency to carry out killing of his family members could have been influence by being in possession of such power. Thus while the accused denied relating his delusional beliefs to any aspect of the act he carried out against his family members and reiterate that it was out of frustration that he did the killings, the doctor is of the opinion that his delusion beliefs do have some degree of influence on his offending behaviour.

The defence did not pleaded insanity but premise its case on diminish responsibility. At the close of the prosecution case the accused opted to remain silent and call no evidence. Counsel for the accused however, submitted that the accused should not be convicted of murder but of manslaughter only because of diminish responsibility.

The defence of diminish responsibility is provided under section 203 of the Penal Code. The provisions pertinent to the defence submission are set out Section 203(1) (2) and (3) of the Penal Code, they state as follows;

“Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from abnormality of the mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by diseases or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.

In a charge of murder, it shall be a defence to prove that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder.

A person who but for this section would be liable, whether as a principal or accessory, to be convicted of murder shall be liable instead be convicted of manslaughter.

When the defence of diminish responsibility is raised the onus is on the defence to satisfied the court on the balance of probabilities that the accused was suffering from abnormality of the mind and therefore he should not be convicted of murder. See Regina-v- Sipiriano Haroroanimae (Unrep.CRC No.8/96.

In Regina v Haro [2003] SBHC 107 HC CRC No. 099 of 2002, Muria CJ stated “In considering this defence the court is entitled and indeed bound to take into account the whole facts and circumstances of the case, including medical evidence, the nature of the killing, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident. His Lordship went on to say that the burden of excluding the defence rest with prosecution and must do so beyond reasonable doubt”.

In the present case, there is evidence that the accused was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2003 and had been on treatment since then taking monthly injections and was due to take his monthly injection around the time of the killing. There was also evidence of the accused had being behaving abnormally before the incident, he burnt down his sister house at Tasahe B just because he said all that his sister and husband were feeding him was rice and taiyo. He poured poisonous chemical into his uncle’s water tank at Leru village, he gets angry over money for top up and food. After killing his mother and sister he went back into the house and shut himself in his room as if nothing happened. When Pw 5 came and asked him whether he knew what he has done his reply was “what did I do?” Would these be considered behaviours or acts of a normal person? My view is, it is not.

The medical evidence show that the accused experienced hallucinations and have delusions that God had given him the power to kill any one and believes he will kill the whole world in 2025.

The question as to whether the accused had the intention to kill his mother and sister or that he killed them under circumstances which raises a defence of diminish responsibility is to be determine by considering facts and the circumstances of the case as stated by Maria CJ in Regina v Haro [2003] SBHC 107; referred to above, in essence this includes inter alia, the facts of the case, the nature and circumstances of the killing, the medical evidence and the accused’s conduct both before and after the killing.

The prosecution had urged the court to convict the accused of murder, however, after considering the facts, the medical evidence, the circumstances and nature of the killing, and the evidence regarding the accused’s conduct both before and after the incident I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused has the malice aforethought when kill his mother and sister. Such vicious killings of one’s own mother and sister in the circumstances points to the act of a person suffering from some form of abnormality of the mind more than anything else. On the evidence before the court I am satisfied the defence of diminish responsibility was made out and the onus is on the prosecution to prove otherwise. The prosecution has not discharge the onus to exclude the defence hence by virtue of section 203 of the Penal Code I must acquit the accused of the two charges of murder but convict him of manslaughter on both counts instead.

The Court

Emmanuel Kouhota

Puisne Judge