PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Solomon Islands
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Solomon Islands >> 2018 >> [2018] SBHC 110

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

R v Goufi [2018] SBHC 110; HCSI-CRC 337 of 2017 (6 September 2018)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS


Case name:
R v Goufi


Citation:


Date of decision:
6 September 2018


Parties:
Regina v Jimson Erega Goufi and Raymond keota


Date of hearing:
10-10; 13-17; 20 August 2018


Court file number(s):
CRC 337 of 2017


Jurisdiction:
Criminal


Place of delivery:



Judge(s):
Sir Palmer; CBE


On appeal from:


Order:
Find the defendants, Jimson Erega Goufi and Raymond Keota guilty of the murder of the Chinese couple, Lao Gongzheu and Wu Yegui.
Enter conviction against the two defendants


Representation:
Mr. R.B Talasasa(Jnr).(Director of Public Prosecutions), and Mrs. M Suifa’asia and Mr. John W. Zoze
Mr. M. Holara for Jimson E. Goufi
Mr. G. Gray for Raymond Keota


Catchwords:



Words and phrases:


Legislation cited:
Evidence Act 2009, s91 and s172, The Modern Law of Evidence, 5th edition 2000


Cases cited:
Festa v Queen, Regina v Hayter

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION


Criminal Case Number 337 of 2017


REGINA


V


JIMSON EREGA GOUFI AND RAYMOND KEOTA
Accused


Date of Hearing: 8-10, 13-17, August 2018
Date of Judgment: 6 September 2018


Mr. R.B Talasasa (Jnr). (Director of Public Prosecutions), and Mrs. M Suifa’asia and Mr. John W. Zoze
Mr. M. Holara for Jimson E. Goufi
Mr. G. Gray for Raymond Keota

JUDGMENT

  1. The two defendants, Jimson Erega Goufi and Raymond Keota (hereinafter referred to as “D1” and “D2” respectively) have been jointly charged with the double murder of a Chinese couple, Lao Gongzhen (“V1”) and his wife Wu Yuegui (“V2”), that on the 15th of April 2017 between the hours of 18:35 hrs and 18:45 hrs attacked and killed the couple within the confines of the building from which they ran their business.
  2. At the time of the killing when the bodies were discovered on the Monday 17th April 2017, there was a public outcry and rumours were ripe as to the motive for the killing. All these however, have been put to rest by a series of surveillance cameras (about 16 in total although camera 15 was found to be faulty and not working at that time), which captured vividly the gruesome and cruel killing that took place in that short window of time of about ten minutes.
  3. I will discuss in detail later in this judgment, various shots and footages captured by certain cameras and piece together the happenings or events that occurred on that fateful day or evening to be exact.

The Prosecution case.

  1. The prosecution case relies primarily on the footages and images taken from those surveillance cameras to identify the two defendants as the persons captured by the cameras and seen attacking and killing the couple in this case.
  2. There has been no dispute in this case about the authenticity of the video footages and images taken from those cameras and their use in this court has been accepted as prima facie evidence of the shots or images of what was captured by those cameras during those crucial times immediately before, during and after the incident. Section 91 of the Evidence Act 2009 provides for the reception of evidence from such sources or devices. I quote:
  3. I accept that there is no dispute that what has been captured by the security cameras at the LGZ shop showed a gruesome and merciless killing of two unsuspecting and innocent victims in the hands of the two persons seen in the footages of the security cameras. It is also not in dispute that the murder weapons used were a bush knife similar to the one marked as “Exhibit 46/1”, and what appeared to be a kitchen knife, which was used to kill Victim 2.

The Defence case.

  1. Both defendants deny committing the offences they have been charged with. Both say they were not at the scene of the crime.
  2. Defendant 1, admits on the said date, Saturday 15th April 2017, he was on duty at work that day at the LGZ shop. He states in an unsworn statement given in his defence that towards the evening, at the end of his shift which normally finishes at 7:00 pm or thereabouts, he signed off and then left and went back home.
  3. Defendant 2, also denies being at the crime scene, stating in evidence given under oath that he was at home at Rifle Range, the same house that Defendant 1 was staying at.

The issue for determination.

  1. The main issue for determination in this case is identification of both defendants as the persons who committed that heinous crime as captured by surveillance cameras in the footages that have been adduced into evidence in court. The authenticity of the video evidence in Court has been attested to by the Database Administrator, (“PW8”) for the Solomon Islands Government Information & Communication Technology Support Unit (“SIG-ICTSU”), who attended the scene of the crime and collated all necessary information including location of the video cameras and the images stored in the hard drive of the device. His evidence has been uncontested. That being the case, identification of the two defendants as the two culprits in the video footages remain the main issue in this case.

The burden of proof.

  1. The burden of proof as always in criminal matters lies with prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the two persons caught in the video cameras were the two defendants and could not be anyone else.

The facts not in dispute.

  1. I find the following facts in relation to Defendant 1 not disputed or contested. Defendant 1 was living at Rifle Range in 2017 at the house of MW (“PW3”). He was doing some studies at that time and also worked as a security guard during that period for BILLS Security Services.
  2. The two victims operated three businesses from the same premises, a Kai Bar or restaurant, Bottle Shop and the LGZ shop.
  3. On the 15th April 2017 Defendant as usual went to work at the LGZ Shop as a security. This was confirmed by others who worked at the LGZ shop, the Kai Bar and Bottle Shop. Witness DM (“PW10”) confirmed that the defendant was working that day as security at the LGZ shop. He was in uniform when working, a light blue shirt which had a badge in front and words written at the back.
  4. She confirmed that she was working that day at the bottle shop and checked out at about 6:06 pm. This is confirmed by the time card that the workers use to clock in and clock out with. A number of cards belonging to the workers at the premises has been tendered as Exhibit 52. She also stated that the defendant would check by signing an exercise book when he finishes work. This same exercise book was tendered in court as Exhibit 51. That exercise book showed at the relevant page the name of the defendant as the security who was on duty on the 15th April 2017 from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm. At the column of signature, his signature has been entered.
  5. The statements of two other witnesses, “MF” and “PM” (Exhibits 2 and 22 tendered by consent) who worked at the premises also confirm that the defendant was on duty that day and was still at the premises when they checked out each at about 6:03 and 6:06 pm respectively.
  6. Another witness JA (statement marked as Exhibit 9) who went to pick one of the workers at the premises also confirmed that the defendant was still at the shop at around 6:30 pm.
  7. The defendant himself in his unsworn statement confirmed that he was at the premises until he signed off that evening and went back home.
  8. In relation to Defendant 2 I find the following facts not disputed. I find that he was staying at the same place as Defendant 1 during that night. According to the evidence of PW3, the owner of the home, he states that Defendant 1 arrived first and then joined later by Defendant 2. They were together at Rifle Range that night and the next day. Defendant 2 admits in his evidence on oath that he spent the night at Rifle Range. His wife and the wife of PW3 are sisters. Defendant 2 also confirms that one of his daughters was staying at Rifle Range for her school.
  9. I also accept as undisputed the video footages and images that had been recorded during that particular period in which the horrific murder was carried out. The evidence adduced as to their authenticity, originality and accuracy has not been disputed and I accept them all as proof of the murder that was committed that day at the LGZ premises.
  10. I also accept as undisputed that the knife found at the premises by PW7 to be one of the murder weapons that was used to kill Victim 1 with. It is consistent with the images seen in the video footage and in the absence of any other logical explanation as to why it was found at the particular spot in the building, the only reasonable conclusion is that when the two killers left the scene of the crime to exit at the back door of the premises they panicked and sought to hide the knife amongst the carton of goods stored at that part of the building. The evidence of PW7 which was uncontested was that he saw blood stains on the blade of the knife. Although no forensic test (I understand not readily available in the country) was carried out, there can be little doubt as to where that could have come from and how that knife happened to be located at that particular spot. In addition, the admission by D1 when shown the knife during the interview by police at question 100 and answer 100 of the interview confirms beyond doubt that exhibit 46/1 was the murder weapon used to kill V1 with.

Evidence of identification of the attackers.

  1. I will start first of all with the identity of Defendant 1 as one of the persons identified in the video footages.
  2. Video Camera 8[1] (“C8”) is positioned just above where Victim 1 sits behind the counter at the corner of that room and takes images looking out towards the entrance of the shop and more particularly of those approaching and standing at the counter to buy at the shop. The video footages before 18:38:00 showed and identified D1 as the security guard and person alone with Victim 1 standing and walking around in the shop and engaging in conversation with Victim 1. He was wearing his security uniform t-shirt with a badge in front and the word “security” at the back clearly visible. He was also wearing a red cap on his head.
  3. There is no mistake as to his identity. Witness PW10, one of the workers at the Bottle Shop confirmed the identification of D1 as the security person seen in the video footages with the blue security uniform and red cap.
  4. Having established his identity as the security person in the video footages seen in C8 from 18:00 hrs to about 18:38:50 hrs, Defendant 1 was then seen locking up the windows outside of the LGZ shop at around 18:37:20-18:38:47 hrs by video cameras 12 (“C12”) and 14 (“C14”).
  5. Shortly after this, camera C8 captured him signing off work in the exercise book, Exhibit 51. Camera C8 showed the time at around 18:38:42–18:38: 51 hrs. This piece of evidence is not contested for D1 actually agrees with this.
  6. I am satisfied his identity up to this crucial point of time had been established beyond reasonable doubt. In his own statement recorded by police he admitted being at the scene. In his unsworn statement he admitted he was at work until he signed off and then left for home.

Did D1 leave the compound or premises after signing off?

  1. The crucial issue and event in relation to D1’s involvement in the killing hinge on what happened after he signed off work and walked out towards the entrance of the shop. Was he walking out to leave the building? Did he leave the building, if not, did he leave the building at another exit? Up to this point he concedes and accepts this evidence. In his unsworn statement to court he states that after signing off work he went home. His defence and that of D2 in essence were that they were not at the scene of the crime, they were at home at Rifle Range.
  2. Although there is no human eye witness account of what transpired in that building thereafter, for all workers had left by then, there is direct evidence however, of what happened, through the eyes of the video cameras (16 in all) that had been positioned in strategic positions in and around the building, which recorded everything that came within its purview in and around the LGZ building at that crucial time.
  3. Video Camera C8 (“C8”) and video camera C6 (“C6”), both positioned inside the shop, picked up D1 walking towards the entrance after having signed the log book between 18:38:53 – 18:38:57 (about 4 seconds). Camera C6 shows him picking up a piece of cloth on the top counter (we now know it was a light blue t-shirt, which he then wore over his security t-shirt to cover or hide the security t-shirt he wore inside.).
  4. Between 18:39:16 – 18:39:19, camera C8 shows D1 (by then he had worn the light blue t-shirt over his security t-shirt) walking over to the front door entrance shutter and pulling it down from inside. Both cameras C12 and C14 on the outside, also confirm the shutter being pulled down from inside at the corresponding time. D1 never left that building through that front entrance and so any suggestions that he did is not true.
  5. Did he leave the building by any other exit? There are two other exits in front of the building, from the Restaurant and the Bottle Shop, and two other exits but from the back of the building, behind the kitchen and at the back of the building behind the Bottle shop. No evidence has been led or suggestion made that D1 ever left the building from any of those four other exits. Having introduced the evidence, he should have told the court as well as to how he left the building and returned to his house. His explanation on this I find to be too vague and I reject this evidence outright as not true. He never left that building.
  6. In any event, camera C8 actually captures him (D1) between the hours of 18:39:19 – 18:39:26 (approximately 7 seconds), after pulling down the entrance shutter from inside, turning around, walking back inside, jumping over the counter, looking for something on the floor and then from 18:39:33 hrs thereafter, running towards where the second attacker and Victim 1 were struggling inside the shop and assisting the second attacker to strike D1 with what seems to be the same knife which the second had used in the initial attack. What happened thereafter is too gruesome to describe for it showed the merciless killing of a helpless man who could not defend himself from a knife attack from D1.

Identity of the first attacker.

  1. By now the identity of this attacker is undeniably and incontrovertibly obvious, being the same security man, D1 that locked up the premises and turned against his own employer. The uncontested evidence of video cameras C8 and C6 from inside and C12 and C14 from outside all confirmed that D1 never left the building. Camera C7 also positioned inside the building, is the camera that captures the gruesome attack by D1 on V1.
  2. This video footage evidence with the concession by D1 of his identity immediately prior to the events that transpired thereafter, I find to be sufficient.
  3. Prosecution however, had gone further and produced one witness, PW10, a workmate, who worked at the bottle shop in the same building. She had worked with the couple since 2012 and was at work on that fateful day until around 6:00 pm or shortly thereafter when she left. She confirmed in evidence that D1 was the security on duty that day and identified him as the person in the video footages and photo prints marked as exhibits 53, 54 and 55. Her identification of D1 was based on personal knowledge, familiarity and recognition.
  4. When shown video footages of various scenes of D1 prior to and during the incident, she did not hesitate to identify him in those footages. She had no hesitation in pointing out that the person with the red cap on his head, wearing a light blue shirt over another t-shirt and attacked V1 with the knife was D1. Her evidence of identification has not been contradicted and I accept as correct, accurate, truthful and reliable.
  5. Thirdly, D1 in his own words, voluntarily given and recorded in his interview with police, confesses to the killing of V1 with the knife (Exhibit 46/1), and killing of V2 as an aider and abettor, or secondary party to that killing.
At question 100 and answer 100, I quote:
  1. At questions 103, 104 and answers 103 and 104 there is also an admission to the killing by D1, I quote:
  2. When all these evidence are collated and put together, the video footages, the circumstances surrounding the offence at that time, the important identification evidence by PW10 and his own confessional statement to police, I am satisfied so that I am sure, that one of the killers identified in the video footages and prints was none other than D1. It could not be anyone else for he never left the scene of the crime after signing off the log book, instead he turned around, jumped over the counter and assisted the second killer to attack and then took over from him to kill V1 with the knife. I am satisfied Prosecution have discharged the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt as to his identity in this murder that occurred at the LGZ shop premises.

The attack on the deceased Lao Gongzhen (V1).

  1. At the risk of being repetitive, video cameras C8, C6 and C7 captured vividly the gruesome attack by D1 on V1. Camera C7 in particular showed D1 striking at V1 with the knife a number of times, about 3 times and causing him to fall down.
  2. The post mortem report[2] of the Doctor, Dr. Roy Maraka which described the wounds on the body of V1 would be consistent with the way the deceased had been attacked as seen in the video footages. There were at least 3 major strikes at the deceased which would be consistent with the four major slash wounds described in the report of the Doctor, (i) a slash wound (115 x 10 mm) which cut through the left ear and skull and entered into the skull, (ii) a slash wound (40 x 2 mm x 25 mm deep) on the left side of the neck, and (iii) a slash wound (160 x 30 mm x 70 mm deep) on the right side of neck, posteriorly, which cut the edge of the neck spine and (iv) a slash wound (80 x 30 mm) on the top part of the head, which made a small cut on the skull but no fracture. These were the major wounds to the neck and head area and would be consistent with video images of the attack on the deceased by D1.
  3. There were other slash wounds (about five) referred to in the report, to the left and right fingers, which would be consistent with defensive wounds.
  4. As a result of the infliction of these grievous injuries by D1, the deceased died from excessive loss of blood. I am satisfied so that I am sure that D1 was primarily responsible for the death of V1.

Evidence of identification of the second attacker.

  1. In Festa v The Queen[3], McHugh J. referred to three forms of identification:
  2. When describing the first two forms of identification evidence, McHugh J. said at 610; 406-407 [54]:
  3. With regards to the third form of identification, his Honour states at 610-611; 407 [56]:
  4. The evidence that has been adduced in this case is not the second or third form but that of positive-identification evidence, the first form of identification, in which the second attacker had been clearly and distinctly identified by a relative of D2, who is also a police officer of some 15 years in the police force. And so while recognising that identification evidence can sometimes be unreliable because of human perception and recollection are prone to error, there is a marked difference in this case, for the attacker or culprit sought to be identified has been caught in the images of multiple cameras, with printouts taken of certain shots so that his image can be repeatedly viewed over and over again.
  5. The next important matter to note in this identification evidence is that it takes the form of recognition of someone known to the witness, in this case, witness PW9 states that D2 is known to him. The recognition of someone known to the witness has more evidential force than the identification of a stranger. While that is so, mistakes sometimes occur even in recognition evidence of close relatives and friends. There is however a marked difference in this case for the video footages can be replayed at will to give opportunity to PW9 to determine if the attacker in the video footage is indeed D2.
  6. In this regard the evidence of PW9 has not been contested, that they are from the same village, are related to each other as cousins and that he recognised the defendant. In his evidence under oath he told the court he had met D2 earlier on that week on the 13th April 2017, at O1 bus stop at White River.
  7. This witness remained firm and unshaken, in particular during cross examination about the identity of the second attacker as D2. When he was pressed about certain scenes which were not clear or the images fuzzy, he explained that he could identify him clearly by recognising his face and when looking at other video footages which were much clearer and examining prints of that attacker contained in Exhibits 53, 54 and 55.
  8. I find him to be an honest, reliable and sincere witness. He was very confident in his responses relating to identification of D2. I am satisfied his evidence of positive identification of D2 not only direct, but also unambiguous and certain. On the other hand, I find nothing to suggest that he may have been mistaken as to the identity of D2. I am satisfied his identification of D2 was also un-contradicted. I am satisfied Prosecution have discharged the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Direct evidence against D2.

  1. Once identification had been secured against the second attacker seen in the video footages, the question or issue of proof of murder against that second attacker was a foregone conclusion, for again the video footages from video cameras C10[4] (C9 on the floor plan), C9 (C10 on the floor plan), C11 (camera in the kitchen), also showed a gruesome picture where V2 was seen running from the kitchen area towards the shop area, obviously having been alerted by sounds coming from the shop to be confronted by D2 from the shop. They were seen in cameras C10 and C9 struggling together and V2 being pushed back towards the kitchen area. It appears V2 had been injured around the neck area, had fallen down and was struggling on the floor. Camera C11 captured her getting up and moving forwards but then seen reversing backwards and attempting to lie down or defend herself with her hands when confronted by D2, who further attacked her and eventually killed her.
  2. The Doctor’s report, Dr. Roy Maraka who carried out the post-mortem report on the body of the deceased on the 19th April 2017, described the cause of death as exsanguination, a medical term, which describes excessive blood loss as the cause of death from the multiple incision wounds (slash and stab) on the neck area. He states: “The fatal wounds were the slash wound on the right side of the neck, and the stab wounds on the left side and the right side of the neck. These wounds were applied from the front of the deceased.” There were three major wounds all at the neck area, (i) a slash wound (50 x 15 mm x 20 mm deep) on the right side of the neck, anteriorly, (ii) a stab wound (22 x mm x 33 mm deep) on the left side of the neck, (iii) a stab wound (27 x 2 mm x 32 mm deep) on the right side at the base of the neck.
In his report the Doctor states, that his internal examination revealed the neck muscles and the major blood vessels (jugular vein) were cut or severed. He also noted a rugged fracture of the neck spine (back bone) at the 6th level. These were the crucial injuries that resulted in the death of V2.
There were other slash wounds at the left and right fingers consistent with being defensive wounds and numerous abrasions and bruises to various parts of her body.
The issue of cause of death and proof of death have never been in issue for the evidence contained in the video footages showed a gruesome killing. Once identification had been secured, I am satisfied so that I am sure, prosecution had discharged the onus placed on it to prove that D2 was the one who attacked and killed V2.

Other evidence.

  1. In their defence both stated that they were at Rifle Range at the house of PW3. No alibi notice however had been given and during cross examination of PW3, no questions were put to him to explain or contradict any suggestions that between the crucial periods of 6:30 – 7:30 pm, they were at Rifle Range at his house. The obvious explanation for this in my considered view would be that no instructions were given as to their defence other than an outright denial or for prosecution to simply prove their case. It was only during cross examination that they came up with the defence that they were at Rifle Range and not at the shop.
  2. Their defence however had been directly contradicted earlier on by PW3. He told court when asked about D1 that on that day the 15th April 2017, he left for work as usual in the morning and returned home at around 7:00 pm. He (PW3) was at the market when D1 met him and so he told him to take the children back to their house. He told court that D2 arrived later. I find PW3 to be an honest, neutral and reliable witness. I accept his answers and version of events to be truthful. His evidence accords with the timing of events that happened after the murder, when the two separated after the killing and arrived separately at their house at Rifle Range at separate times. I am satisfied their defence that they were at home at that crucial time to have been exposed as being untruthful.

The unsworn statement of Jimson E. Goufi.

  1. In his defence, D1 elected to give an unsworn statement, in which he stated that after signing the log book at the LGZ shop, he returned home. This piece of evidence however had never been put to prosecution witnesses to explain or contradict other than he was seen later returning to his home later that evening.
  2. I find his statement to be too vague and unambiguous and I do not believe his account.
  3. His evidence had been contradicted by clear video footages and admissions in his record of interview of involvement in the killing at the LGZ shop.

The evidence of Raymond Keota.

  1. D2 elected to give evidence under oath denying any knowledge or involvement in the killing at the LGZ shop. He also told court that he was at Rifle Range that evening at the home of PW3.
  2. Again it is to be noted that this was never put in cross examination to prosecution witnesses to explain or contradict and appears to have been raised for the first time in court.
  3. I find him to be very evasive, vague and uncooperative in his responses to questions put to him by the learned Director, in cross examination, especially when it related to evidence and video footages, which showed his direct involvement in the crime at the scene. Apart from straight denials, he offered no reasonable, logical or intelligent explanation, reasons or answers as to the images that showed his direct involvement in the murders. I do not believe his account and denials.

Evidence of joint enterprise.

  1. The two defendants had been charged together in common pursuit of a joint criminal enterprise. The prosecution case is that both were involved together in planning or organising the events that occurred that evening, which resulted in the murder of the Chinese couple.
  2. Is there evidence of a joint criminal enterprise, a common purpose, common design, or concert in which both had planned or organised the events that evening? Apart from the admissions of D1 in his record of interview, which I will say more on later, the video footage shows two persons acting in concert together to effect a common purpose. If there was any coincidence of being involved in it together, what unfolded from the video footages from beginning to end, showed an uncanny familiarity with each other, behaving and acting in a manner consistent with persons in concert together to execute a common purpose and design, with tragic consequences for V1 and V2.
  3. The coincidental phone calls[5] (about three in total), which the video footages showed D1 received and made prior to the arrival of D2 (I will say more on this when addressing the confessional statement of D1), the timing of the whole incident on a Saturday when all other workers had left, the arrival of D2 into the shop just when the shop was about to be locked up by D1, D2 looking back to check it seems, if the shutter had been pulled down by D1, before jumping over the counter to attack V1, leave little to the imagination, other than the hallmarks of a well and carefully executed plan. What transpired thereafter only strengthens and supports the view they were acting in concert together.
  4. After pulling the shutter down, D1 is seen by video camera C7, walking back into the shop, for he never left the shop, jumping over the counter and went to the assistance of D2. He is seen holding the knife (exhibit 46/1) and attacking V1 and striking him with the knife several times (at least about 3 times). This attack is captured by camera C7.
  5. The same security man who walked out to close the shutter had put over his security uniform another light blue t-shirt, in an apparent effort it seems to disguise his identity, but it was all in vain, for there can be no mistake about his identity as the same security man with the red cap on his head and who never exited the building.
  6. The video footages showed D2 attacking and killing V2. They were then seen later, together in the kitchen, cleaning themselves at the sink, in an effort it seems to wash away blood stains from their hands and feet. They were seen together collecting what we now know to be bundles of money from the cash box, placing them in back packs and then exiting the building together one after the other, all these being captured by different cameras positioned at different parts of the building. These video footages are undisputed.
  7. I am satisfied those video footages showed a close association between the two of them and that there can be little doubt they could not be acting otherwise than in concert together to execute their carefully orchestrated plan.

Motive for the joint criminal enterprise.

  1. This would seem to be the case of a plan to rob or steal, gone wrong for the confessional statement of D1 provides somewhat an explanation of the motive for the attack. At questions and answers 68 – 71, this is what he states:
  2. At questions and answers to 74-75, he states that D2 rang him to inform him that he was on his way to carry out the mission, which is consistent with the video footages in which D1 was seen talking on the phone immediately prior to the arrival of D2 at the shop.
  3. At question and answer 76, he explained that their initial plan to steal changed when there was resistance from the couple, resulting in their deaths. At questions and answers 83-84, he confirmed they took money in the sum of about $60,000.00 and shared this between them.
  4. This admission of theft is consistent with the sudden increase in wealth being displayed and splashed around witnessed by other independent Crown witnesses. PW2 told the court how he was given “bus fare” in the sum of $4,000.00, by D1, which he could not account for or explain as to how D1 could suddenly have acquired such money. Another witness whose statement was admitted as evidence in court stated, that he was given $2,000.00 by D1, which he used to purchase a bike with. This sudden increase in wealth displayed by the defendants immediately after the killing at the LGZ shop is consistent with the explanation that these came from the theft of takings from the LGZ shop.

Statement of a co-accused in a joint criminal enterprise.

  1. Section 172 of the Evidence Act 2009, preserves the common law position relating to the admissibility of a confession by one accused against another. The common law rule about confessions is that a voluntary out of court confession or admission against interest made by a defendant is an exception to the hearsay rule and is admissible against him. A confession is however, generally inadmissible against any other person implicated in the confession. The rationale for the rule is set out in the 12th edition (1936) of a Digest of the Law of Evidence by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen at 36 as follows:
  2. In a House of Lords decision however, in the case of Regina v. Hayter[6], in a majority decision consisting of Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, three exceptions to the hearsay rule were referred to. At page 6, paragraph 25, Lord Steyn states:
The second and third exceptions are of interest in this case, in particular the third exception in my view is directly relevant to the circumstances of this case.
  1. I find that the extrajudicial admission or confession of D1 in this case fell squarely within the third exception; his confession revealed not only the motive for the crime, but the tragic consequences which followed from a plan, which was initially to steal or rob the couple, but gone completely wrong, turning into a ghastly killing of the two victims. His confession discloses when the plan was hatched[7], the phone calls received prior to the attack, how it was carefully executed, who killed who, an admission to one of the murder weapons used, a bush knife exhibited in court, which was used to kill V1, the amount of money taken and shared, and to the time they exited the building.
  2. What is pertinent to note about the confession is that it further confirms and clarifies what was already obvious from the evidence captured in the video footages, of being in concert together to achieve or fulfil a common purpose. They were both principals and aiders (secondary parties) to the killing of each of the victims. The confessional statement is like 10% of the pieces in a puzzle that were needed to complete the picture. The video footage evidence being more than sufficient as a stand-alone evidence, once identification had been determined, to prove the crimes of murder beyond reasonable doubt against the two defendants, even if the confessional statement was to be excluded.

Other evidence of close association.

  1. Independent witnesses have confirmed and which has not been denied by both defendants that they resided together at the same residence at Rifle Range before, during and immediately after the incident, before each going off separately to Malaita obviously in an attempt to evade capture. This close association is all consistent with the Crown’s case that they were acting together to commit the crime that evening.
  2. Another piece of evidence which is consistent with Crown’s case, is a lap top belonging to the deceased’s couple being found in the possession of D2, when police did a search of his house in his village at Malaita. It is coincidental the lap top was found in his possession and coincidental that his explanation links D1 together as the person who sold the lap top to him for $300.00. Again the inference that can be drawn from this even if coincidental, is that of their close association, which would have stemmed from their being directly connected to the crimes committed at the LGZ shop.

Conclusion.

  1. I am satisfied prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the two defendants, D1 and D2 were the persons who were involved in the most cruel and inhumane killing of two innocent Chinese couple going about their daily business at LGZ shop and I find them both guilty of their murder and convict them accordingly; I so order. They both have a right of appeal if aggrieved by the decision and orders of the Court.

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

(i) Find the defendants, Jimson Erega Goufi and Raymond Keota guilty of the murder of the Chinese couple, Lao Gongzheu and Wu Yuegui.
(ii) Enter conviction against the two defendants.

The Court
Sir Albert R. Palmer CBE

[1] See position as set out in the floor plan of the building marked as Exhibit 47.
[2] The post mortem report is Exhibit 34.
[3] [2001] 208 CLR 593; 185 ALR 394 per McHugh J.
[4] C10 is the camera in the restaurant and looks towards the kitchen entrance. C9 overlooks the cashier area in the restaurant.
[5] Video camera C8 showed at about 18:08:03 D1 making a call on his mobile phone and walking towards the entrance of the shop. At 18:08:13 – 18:08:52 video camera C12 showed him outside the shop talking on the phone for almost 1 minute.
At approximately 18:09:23 video camera C8 showed him receiving a call, pulling out his mobile phone from his pocket, answering the phone and walking out of the shop. Video camera C12 showed him at 18:09:40 – 18:12:26 coming out of the shop and was seen talking on the phone for about 3 minutes or so.
At approximately 18:23:39 video camera C8 showed him making another phone call and at about 18:23:43 – 18:24:36 video camera C12 showed him talking on his phone outside of the shop.
[6] Session 2004-2005 [2005] UKHL 6
[7] See questions and answers to questions 68-75 in the record of interview of Jimson E. Goufi (Exhibit 45).

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2018/110.html