R v Maqila [2022] SBHC 75; HCSI-CRC 370 of 2021 (7 October 2022)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Maqila
Citation:
Date of decision:	7 October 2022
Parties:	Rex v Mathias Maqila
Date of hearing:	7 October 2022 (Gizo Court Circuit, October 2022)
Court file number(s):	686 of 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Keniapisia; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	8.1 I will acquit the accused from the charges of one count of incest contrary to Section 163 (2) of the Penal Code Amendment Sexual Offences Act 2016 (No. 3 0f 2016). 8.2 Accused will be released from remand at the rising of the Court.
Representation:	Mr Meioko A for the Crown Max H for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 S 136 (2), Criminal Procedure Code [cap 7] S 269 (1)
Cases cited:	R v Tome [2004] SBCA 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 686 of 2020

REX

V

MATHIAS MAQILA

Date of Hearing: 7 October 2022 (Gizo Court Circuit. October 2022)
Date of Decision: 7 October 2022

Mr. Meioko A for the Crown
Max H for the Defendant

Keniapisia; PJ

RULING ON A “NO CASE TO ANSWER”

1. This is one of the 3 trials, I confirmed for my Gizo Circuit, this October. Trial commenced on 5/10/2022. Prosecution called its first and crucial witness, the complainant. The complainant or victim gave evidence in chief basically denying the whole charge. So, the prosecution in essence did not adduce any evidence at all, to support its case and to require the defendant to answer. Crown’s evidence stopped just after the victim gave evidence, that was detrimental to the Crown’s case. No other witnesses were called.
2. Sensing the fate of the Crown’s case, defence counsel wanted to make a “no case to answer” submission. Court adjourned to 7/10/2022, to hear the “no case to answer” submission. At hearing on 7/10/2022, Crown conceded that there is no case to answer. Crown took this position and rightly so, because there was indeed insufficient evidence or not evidence at all coming from the complainant herself. The complainant was the Crown’s crucial witness for it to proof its case, because the complainant is the primary witness. When the primary witness gave unfavourable evidence, there is nothing else, the Crown could do except to concede. I can imagine if I was the Prosecutor, I would be very sorry and angry. Sorry because, I had wasted my time preparing for trial. Angry because the victim raised complainants at the first place, requiring the State to waste valuable resources in bringing the matter before Court.
3. The essence of the unfavourable evidence from the victim was that she told lies to the Police at time of initial investigation because she was afraid of her father at the material time. She was afraid because her father was furious and got angry with her and her little sister for going out to meet him to ask for money to pay for ring cake when men were out in the open drinking beer. She was carrying her younger sister at that time.
4. At the time she spoke with Police, at the initial interview, it was around the same time her father got angry with her for going out from their house, whilst men were out in the open drinking beer. She was afraid and so told lies to the Police about her father.
5. It was on the initial story to the Police, that charges were laid against the accused – who is the father of the complainant. The initial interview led to the following charges laid against the accused, as per the Information: -
   • “The defendant is charged with one count of incest contrary to Section 163 (2) of the Penal Code (Amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act (No 3 of 2016) ”
6. Section 163 (2) provides:-
   • “Section 163 (2) of the Penal Code (amendment) (Sexual Offences) Act 2016 provides as follows :
   • (2) A person commits an offence if the person has sexual intercourse with another person who is a close family member of the person.
   • Maximum penalty:
     • (a) If the close family member is under 13 years of age – life imprisonment; or
     • (b) In any other case – 10 years imprisonment.”
7. Because the victim changed her initial story to the Police, there is no evidence at all to support the charges. This is why the Prosecution conceded to the “no case to answer”. That is the end of the matter. I need not discuss the law because of the concession, made by the Crown. Suffice to say that there is no favourable evidence to support Crown’s case, relying on Section 269 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 7) and the case of Regina v-Tome. I say I need not discuss the law anymore. Basically, as the Crown submitted, it could not make out a prima facie case under Section 269 (1) of the CPC.
8. On the basis of Crown’s concession, the orders of the Court are:
   • 8.1 I will acquit the accused from the charges of one count of incest contrary to Section 163 (2) of the Penal Code Amendment Sexual Offences Act 2016 (No. 3 0f 2016).
   • 8.2 Accused will be released from remand at the rising of the Court.

THE COURT
JUSTICE JOHN A KENIAPISIA
PUISNE JUDGE