R v Moveni [2022] SBHC 77; HCSI-CRC 565 of 2021 (17 October 2022)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	R v Moveni
Citation:
Date of decision:	17 October 2022
Parties:	Rex v Jayzarick Bule Moveni
Date of hearing:	11 & 17 October 2022
Court file number(s):	565 of 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Bird; PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	I hereby direct that the charge against the Defendant is dismissed and the Defendant is hereby acquitted of the charge of manslaughter. I order accordingly.
Representation:	Mrs Margret Suifa’asia & Mr Lindsay Tamaika for the Crown Mr Ronald Dive for the Defendant
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	Penal Code S 199 [cap 26]
Cases cited:	R v Alwyn Salau [2000] SBHC 100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Case No. 565 of 2021

REX

V

JAYZARICK BULE MOVENI

Date of Hearing: 11 & 17 October 2022
Date of Decisions: 17 October 2022

Mrs Margret Suifa’asia & Mr. Lindsay Tamaika for the Crown

JUDGMENT

Bird PJ:

1. The Defendant in this case is charged with the offence of manslaughter contrary to section 199 of the Penal Code (cap 26). He had entered a not guilty plea and the matter came to trial before me.
2. The Prosecution had called two witnesses in support of the allegation. The two witnesses were working as security personnel at the Kukum SDA compound. The incident occurred on the night of the 12^th June 2021. The only light around the area was from Hatanga property, which was some distance away from the scene of the fight. The two witnesses confirmed there was a fight between two boys from Western Province and a group of about five boys. They saw them fighting and punches were exchanged between them but it was not possible for them to identify which of them hit who. That was the state of the evidence in this case and the Crown offered no further evidence. After calling the two witnesses, they closed their case.
3. Mr. Dive of Counsel for the Defendant made an application for a no case to answer but was unable to state the provision of law under the Criminal Procedure Code. After having adjourned the matter to the afternoon, Mrs Suifa’asia had brought to the attention of the court the case of R v Alwyn Salau & Silas Atu [2000] SBHC 100, HCSI-CRC 45 of 2000. Having done that, she submitted that the proper cause for the court to take is to have the Defendant acquitted rather than to determine an application under section 269 1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That issue was dealt with by this court in the Alwyn Salau case.
4. In this case, some evidence was adduced by the Prosecution on the allegation against the Defendant. After having called the two witnesses, they offered no further evidence. That situation had left the case open-ended as the two witnesses called could not identify the assailant both during the fight as well as in court whilst giving evidence. In view of that circumstance, the proper cause would be to have the Defendant acquitted of the charge of manslaughter.
5. Having perused and noted what was said in the Alwyn Salau case and having taken into account the submission of Mrs Suifa’asia of Counsel for the Crown, I hereby direct that the charge against the Defendant is dismissed and the Defendant is hereby acquitted of the charge of manslaughter.

I order accordingly.

THE COURT
Hon. Justice Maelyn Bird
Puisne Judge