R v Buia [2021] SBHC 46; HCSI-CC 193 of 2018 (25 May 2021)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Buia
Citation:
Date of decision:	25 May 2021
Parties:	Regina v Prudence Buia
Date of hearing:	22 April 2021
Court file number(s):	193 of 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1. The application of the defendant pursuant to section 269 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is hereby granted. 2. The defendant has no case to answer. 3. The defendant is hereby acquitted of the charge of manslaughter contrary to section 199 of the Penal Code (cap 26) 4. The defendant is to be released at the rising of the court.
Representation:	Mr. John Wesley Zoze for the Crown Mr. Nigel Galo for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code Section 199 [ cap 26], Criminal Procedure Code Section 269 (1) [cap 7], Section 169 (1)
Cases cited:	R v Tome [2004] SBCA 13, R v Somae [2005] SBCA 18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case Number

REGINA

V

PRUDENCE BUIA

Date of Hearing: 22 April 2021
Date of Ruling: 25 May 2021

Mr. John Wesley Zoze for the Crown
Mr. Nigel Galo for the Defendant

RULING

Bird PJ:

1. The defendant Prudence Buia is indicted with one count of manslaughter contrary to section 199 of the Penal Code (cap 26). The defendant had pleaded not guilty to the charge and a trial was conducted. In the crown’s opening address, it was their case that in the morning of the 23^rd December 2017, at Travellers Motel, Auki the defendant assaulted the deceased Bethalyn Taemana by pressing her neck with her hands. As a result, the deceased was unable to breathe. Having failed to resuscitate the deceased with water, the defendant with the assistance of Ms. Unity Kaelonga carried the deceased from the bathroom and laid her in room 9 where she was later found dead. It was further the crowns case that the defendant then arranged the deceased body by pulling her trousers to her legs and her bar was exposed to implicate that the deceased was raped. It was also alleged that the defendant admitted killing the deceased to her husband, Benjamin Buia.
2. With the above alleged facts, the crown had called four prosecution witnesses. PW1 was the defendant’s husband, Benjamin Buia and PW2 was Ms. Unity Kaelonga, PW1’s sister. It is noted that the case for the crown is solely based on the third police statements of both PW1 and PW2. The admissibility of the respective police statements of PW1 and PW2 dated 31^st March 2018 were challenged by the defence. A voir dire was conducted into the circumstances surrounding the taking of the respective statements. On the 19^th April 2021, I ruled that the respective police statements of PW1 and PW2 dated 31^st March 2018 were inadmissible and should not be used as evidence against the defendant.
3. Pursuant to my ruling of the 19^th April 2021, the crown had thereby tendered with the consent of the defence the police statements of William Tuita dated 28 December 2017, Michael Maekali dated 29 December 2017., Chris Baekalia dated 29 December 2017, Ianny Bateni dated 28 December 2017, Betty Kalu dated 17 April 2018.,Linda Ugulu dated 26 March 2018, Margaret Kaban dated 27 March 2018, Nickson Tuita dated 29 December 2017, Joe Hero’au dated 31 December 2017, Muriel Mae dated 1 March 2018, Gean Waleilia dated 16 April 2018, Matthew Ete dated 22 January 2018, Linda Bateni dated 28 December 2017, Sophie Haru’ahea dated 8 January 2018, Judy Ramo dated 12 January 2018, Eddrian Tani dated 27 March 2018, Mary Sipisoa dated 24 March 2018, Anthonio Suiti dated 26 March 2018. After having tendered the police statements as part of their evidence against the defendant, Mr. Zoze of Counsel then closed the crowns case.
4. At the close of the crowns case, Mr. Galo of counsel for the defendant made an application pursuant to section 269 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (cap 7) (CPC) that for the charge of manslaughter against the defendant, she had no case to answer and she ought to be acquitted.
   • Section 169 (1) states:
   • “If at the close of the evidence in support of the charge it appears to the court that a case is not made out against the accused person sufficiently to require him to make a defense, the court shall dismiss the case and shall forthwith acquit the accused”.
5. In any criminal trial, the crown bears the duty to prove all the elements of the offending beyond all reasonable doubt. If the court has any doubt as slight as it may be, it must acquit the accused person.
6. In this present case, the elements that must be proved by the crown beyond reasonable doubt are the following:
   1. The defendant
   2. Place of offending
   3. Date of offending
   4. Had unlawfully
   5. Caused the death
   6. Of the victim
7. At this stage of the proceeding the test that must be satisfied by the crown is as stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Tome [2004] SBCA 13, CA-CRAC 004 of 2004 in which the court had stated on page 4 of their judgment the following:
   • “the test called for by s.269 (1) is whether or not there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence. That must mean that if there is some evidence that the accused committed the offence the case must proceed to final determination by the tribunal of fact”.
8. It is also incumbent on the court at this stage to take the prosecution case at its highest and that means accepting the evidence most favourable to the prosecution when determining whether the accused has a case to answer. The test therefore is not whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but rather whether there is evidence capable of supporting a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
9. In the case of Regina v Somae [2005] SBCA 18, the Court of Appeal had stated on page 5 that ‘it is important to note that the evidence that is too be considered for the purpose of no case submission must be capable of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the accused guilt. It is not enough if it is merely capable of proving the possibility of guilt. It must be capable, if accepted, of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”.
10. PW1 and PW2 were the crucial witnesses for the crown at the opening of their case. When PW1 and PW2 were called to give sworn evidence in court, they did not implicate the defendant as the person that killed the deceased.
11. All of the police statements mentioned in paragraph 3 above talked about the circumstances to what the deceased was doing on the evening of the 22^nd December 2017 and whom she was with that evening until the early hours of the 23^rd December 2017. Some of the police statements talked about how they found the body of the deceased in room at the Travellers Motel in Auki. They assisted in cleaning the body and took the body back to Kwaibala Village. What was also evident was that all of the people who were with the deceased on the 22^nd December 2017 to the early hours of 23^rd December 2017 were all drinking alcohol.
12. Apart from the police statements which were tendered by consent, a list of exhibits was also tendered by consent. They included the record of interview by the defendant dated 3^rd April 2018, photos of the crime scene, unsigned sketch plan of the crime scene dated 23^rd December 2017, sketch plan of the Travellers Motel by Unity Kaelonga undated and autopsy report by Dr. Roy R Maraka.
13. There is nothing in the record of interview that implicated the defendant in the alleged killing of the deceased. The photos of the crime scene and the sketch plan are not worth much in terms of evidence. The autopsy report of Dr. Maraka is not conclusive evidence of the cause of death.
14. From the evidence of the crown, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence that identified the defendant as the killer. There is no dispute that the deceased was Bethalyn Taemana. There is also no dispute that she was found dead at the Travellers Motel in Auki, Malaita Province. The date of the death of the deceased was around the early hours of the 23^rd December 2017.
15. The crown’s theory was that the defendant pressed the deceased neck with her hands and the deceased was unable to breath and died. There was no evidence adduced by the crown whether direct or circumstantial that the defendant had in fact pressed the deceased neck with her hands and the deceased died as a result. There was no nexus or connection of the cause of death to any unlawful act of the defendant.
16. Having analysed the case for the crown, I hereby ask myself this question, At its highest, has the crown adduced evidence capable of supporting a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offence of manslaughter? I will answer that question in the negative. I am not satisfied that the evidence adduced is capable of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact there is no evidence whether direct or circumstantial advised by the crown that identified the defendant as the person that killed Bethalyn Taemana, the deceased.
17. The defendant has no case to answer and she is not required to make a defence. The defendant is hereby acquitted of the charge of manslaughter.

Orders of the court

1. The application of the defendant pursuant to section 269 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is hereby granted.
2. The defendant has no case to answer.
3. The defendant is hereby acquitted of the charge of manslaughter contrary to section 199 of the Penal Code (cap 26)
4. The defendant is to be released at the rising of the court.

THE COURT
Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge