R v Habatia [2019] SBHC 60; HCSI-CC 512 of 2018 (2 August 2019)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Habatia
Citation:
Date of decision:	2 August 2019
Parties:	Regina v Charles Solomon Habatia
Date of hearing:	8 May 2019
Court file number(s):	CRC 512 of 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Maina; PJ
On appeal from:	Magistrate Court
Order:	The appellant is acquitted
Representation:	Mr. P Abe for the Prosecution Mr. B Alasia for the Defence
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code, c/s 278 (1) © (1), Public Financial Management Act 2013
Cases cited:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 512 of 2018

REGINA

V

CHARLES SOLOMON HABATIA

Date of Ruling: 2 August 2019

Mr. P Abe for the Prosecution
Mr. B Alasia for the Defence

RULING ON APPEAL

Maina PJ: The Appellant Charles Solomon Habatia was convicted by the Magistrate Court on 19^th July 2018 on the charge of conversion c/s 278 (1) © (1) of the Penal Code.

The charge stated that the appellant converted part of a special imprest money of $24,000 from the Ministry of Finance and Treasury (MOFT) to fund the police operations within the Honiara city.

The accused was sentenced to three years and 6 months imprisonment.

Appellant appealed against the conviction on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence and seeks the conviction be set aside and quashed.

It is not dispute the charge relate and involves a special imprest of $24,000 owned by SI Government (SIG) and dispensed to accused to hold (imprest holder) for Police operation. And Crown alleged that appellant did not use the entire $24,000 for the intended purposes however he used part of the money for his own benefit.

At the trail the appellant remained silence.

This is a fascinating case, on the fact the evidences in the judgment by the magistrate did not disclosed the owner of the money, the MOFT for the SIG as complainant even no record to show the money was retired and acknowledged by the SIG as owner. The magistrate’s judgment stated the prosecution case was the receipts were false and were produced by the appellant to deceive the SIG in the retirement.

With this it is clear the special imprest was still at the process of retirement when the charge of conversion was filed against the appellant. Notably it was done when the retirement papers were disputed by the officers that they did not receive the money as shown in the purported retirement papers.

The Appellant appealed against the conviction on the ground that there was no evidence to support the conviction of the charge of conversion.

The money or special imprest is SIG’s money and under the law, it is regulated under the Public Financial Management Act 2013 (PFMA) and the Financial Instructions (FI’s) for the accountability or method of retirements of SIG monies.

On that, it is proper to check any feature of the money or special imprest under the PFMA before any determination of the appeal grounds. The issue to be sorted out is or enquire into is the purpose or uses and handling of the SIG monies and funds and in particular the special imprest under the PFMA.

This legislation was hinted by counsel for the appellant in his submission but on different system of checking SIG funds or for the purpose of auditing of money. The crown’s counsel nor the magistrate in his judgment cited this PFMA. It is important to do so as to check the criminality of using the SIG funds and charging person under the Penal Code.

At the outset, If I find that the special imprest is regulated by the PFMA or provisos of the Act, then it may raise doubt or whether appellant should be charge for conversion c/s 278 (1) © (1) of the Penal Code. Otherwise that determines the end or outcome of this appeal.

PFMA is an Act to provide a framework the financial management by the Government for enhancing transparency and accountability in the control of public resources or SIG monies. Under the Act in section 90, the Minister to make a Ministerial Instructions for the better carrying out of the provisions and purposes of the PFMA. The PMFA requires that these instructions are adequate for the guidance of accounting officers.

The Minister made a Ministerial Instructions and commonly known as “Financial Instruction” or “FI’s” and purposes of the PFMA. This FI’s provides for all SIG monies or funds including the Special Imprest.

Chapter 7 of the FI’s state that Special Imprest will be recorded in SIG Accounts as a personal advance to the holder of it. The holder is accountable and upon retirement the holder will be cleared of the personal Advance against his name of the Special Imprest holder in the SIG accounts. This provision state that if the holder fail to account for it will be recovered as salary deductions.

The holder is an accountable officer and only use the Special Imprest for the reason given on the application. Any other use of the Special Imprest is a disciplinary offence.

This is requirement of such fund under the PFMA and the question now is whether the Special Imprest took by the appellant fall in or with the accountability under the PFMA.

And by the requirement of the Act as stated above, I am satisfied the accountability of Special Imprest is under the Act and appellant signed off, the holder of the imprest is accountable for it under the Public Financial Management Act 2013 and as regulated by the FI’s.

There may be some elements of corruptions or misuse on part of the appellant as responsible officer for the special imprest, but the fact the accountable of it is under the PFMA does not make the misuse or whatever you may describe such act to the special imprest a conversion under the Penal Code, rather the recovered of it or any part from salary deductions and or is a disciplinary offence as stated in Chapter 7 of the FI’s.

The issues with the denial or dispute by the officers of not receiving part the money from the special imprest with the appellant is another matter.

The charge of conversion against the appellant is misconceived on part of the Police and Prosecution, unreasonable or entirely defective therefore is dismissed, conviction set aside and quashed. The appellant is acquitted.

Before leaving this matter, I wish to say it is a concern on how the charge was laid against the appellant for conversion under the Penal Code. It is not only crucial of part of those who were concerned but a wasted a lot of time, effort, resources or money of the Government.

And I can say here that such is carelessness or negligence on part the Police and the DPP’s office. They should be versed with the laws or system of the government and what happened in this case is disgrace on their parts.

THE COURT
Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge