R v Taro [2025] SBHC 67; HCSI-CRC 390 of 2023 (5 May 2025)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Case name:	R v Taro

Citation:

Date of decision:	5 May 2025

Parties:	Rex v Oloni Taro

Date of hearing:	13 March 2025

Court file number(s):	390 of 2023

Jurisdiction:	Criminal

Place of delivery:

Judge(s):	Kouhota; PJ

On appeal from:

Order:

Representation:	Mr J Auga for the Crown Mr R Brook for the Defendant

Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:	Penal Code S 200 [cap 26]

Cases cited:

Counsel: Mr J Auga for the Crown
Counsel: Mr R Brook for the Defendant

The Accused Mr. Oloni Taro was charged with murder contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code, (Cap 26). The prosecution alleged that on 1^st February 2023, he murdered Trevor William Tautahi at Maranu’u village, Makira Ulawa province.

At the outset I reminded myself that the burden of proving the charge against the accused lies with the prosecution and that, the prosecution must do so beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution called four witnesses to give evidence in support of the Crown’s case. The first prosecution witness (PW1) is Mr. Nehemiah Oru. His evidence was that on the day of the incident he went to Mostyn Mae’s house to get a bag to put a dog inside. When he reached Mostyn house he saw Trevor (deceased) and another man name Mari Brox were drinking homebrew. Trevor told him to drink with them so he stayed and drink with them. At about 1 pm he said the accused Oloni and Lawson arrived. He notice that Oloni was already drunk.

Oloni joined them to drink and they continue drinking. Oloni and Trevor are biological brothers. Oloni then asked Trevor for his bottle of homebrew. Trevor told him, the drink is finished and that they should just drink first. Oloni said to Trevor, you lied too much and said he did not want to drink with them and said I am going. Nehemiah said Oloni looked cross but did not argue too much. Oloni then went alone to his house and Trevor, Mari and Nehemiah remained sitting after he left.

Trevor then said they go to John Sae’s house to find smoke. At that time, Oloni was already at his house. Oloni’s house is about 60 meters from John Sae’s house. At John Sae’s house were Trevor, Mari and Nehemiah. PW1 saw Oloni came to an incomplete house and started throwing timbers around in the complete house and saying “ who na cross” PW1 said to him, no one is cross. Then he saw Oloni hold a piece of timber and came to where they were siting. He described the piece of timber as 3 x 1 inches and 1 meter long. The Court had view the piece of timber and is satisfied, the piece of timber matched the description.

PW1 said he was sitting on the ground when Oloni came and hit him on the shoulder with the timber. He said he did not see when Oloni hit Trevour because he was busy with his injury but he think Oloni hit Trevor. After being hit Trevor said, let us kill (hit) this man. Trevor ran to him and the two fought. They did not fight for a long time but Trevor cause Oloni to fall. Oloni ran to Nehemiah’s house and Trevor ran after him. Nehemiah’s house is about 50 meter from where the two were fighting. PW1 said he did not know what happened there because he was in pain and weak so he follow them slowly. He told the Court he went and lay down at his house so he did not see Trevor’s injury.

His evidence when cross-examine were consistent with his evidence in chief. He said under cross-examination that Mari Brox ran away when Oloni came with the timber. He confirm under cross-examination that he did not see when Oloni hit Trevor because he was busy with his injury.

The second prosecution witness (PW2) is Mr Mari Brox. His evidence was that on 1^st February 2023, he was at his Father Mostyn Mae’s house. While there, Trevor came to him with a bottle of homebrew drink. He said Trevor was already drinking. The two of them sat down drinking, then Nehemiah (PW1) came and joined them. He said about 3 pm Oloni (the accused) came and told them to give him drink. They told him to go and sleep because he has been drinking since yesterday. When they said this to him, Oloni wanted them to fight Trevor. After this, Oloni went back to his house.

Mari and others then want to find smoke and went to John Sae’s house. Then he saw Oloni went to an incomplete house and started whipping with the timbers in the house. He shouted to them saying “waitim me lo there by mi kam kilim you fala lo there”

Oloni came with a piece of timber so PW2 said they should ran away and so he stood up and ran away and went and stood some distance away. He said he ran away because he saw the accused with the piece of timber and that the accused was cross. When he turned back, he saw the accused hit Trevor (the deceased) with the timber. He saw Oloni whipped Trevor on the backside of the neck. He described the timber as 3 x 1 inches timber and one fathom long. After Oloni hit Trevor, Trevor and Nehemiah fought with the accused. Then the accused ran to Nehemiah’s house and fell down. PW2 said he picked him up and washed his body. When he was washing him, Trevor ran over and jumped at the accused. The he saw Trevor went and felled down, so they went and checked him and gave him water to drink, but he could not swallow the water. Then they saw that he was not breathing. PW3 Dorcas Ebagari checked his pulse and said he was dead. PW2 said there was no injuries on Trevor’s body but there was bleeding in his ears. PW2 only saw the accused whipped Trevor once.

Under cross-examination, PW2 said he did not see Oloni drinking the previous day or night. He was standing when he saw Oloni hit Trevor. He ran to Nehemiah’s house and saw the accused on the ground. He saw Trevor and Nehemiah fighting the accused. He went and separated them and told them not to fight so the accused ran back to his house, then to Nehemiah’s house and felled down. When he saw this, he went and washed his body. When he was washing the accused’s body, Trevor came and jumped at the accused but he missed and went away.

The Third prosecution witness (PW3) is Mrs. Dorcas Ebagari. She did not see the fight but was in her kitchen when she heard her small son called and said Trevor is not breathing. She ran down and saw Trevor laying on the ground. She saw Trevor’s eyes and mouth were open and tongue black. She held his hand but feel there was no pulse. She helped washed his body then they took him to his house.

The Fourth prosecution witness is Dr. Roy R. Maraka, a general pathologist. As part of his evidence he tendered to the Court a copy of his Autopsy report dated 24^th Mach 2023. The report contained his findings of an autopsy he carried out on the body of the deceased Trevor Willie Dautaha on 3 February 2023. For purposes of completeness his findings on the autopsy report is reproduced herein, they are as follows;

There was haemorrhage, 70x70mm wide, under the scalp on the right side of the head, posteriorly. There was no skull fracture. The brain was decomposed, became soup-like. There was no haematoma or haemorrhage present on or in the brain, however, the decomposition could hinder the present of haemorrhages.

Neck: The hyoid bone and neck spine were not fractured. The neck muscles and tissues were decomposed.

Chest wall/Ribs: Ribs were not fractured. There was dark area on the mid area of the chest with measured 70 x 30 mm.

Respiratory system: The airways (trachea and bronchi) were clear. The lungs were decomposed. There were no blood collections in the pleural cavities.

Cardio-vascular system: The aorta was smooth with no atherosclerosis. The heart was decomposed. The left ventricular wall (heart muscle) measured 13 mm thick, right ventricular wall, 4 mm; and interventricular, 12 mm. the left coronary artery was hardened but open. The right coronary artery was normal. The values appeared normal.

Alimentary tract/liver/gallbladder/pancreas: The oesophagus, stomach, intestines, liver and gallbladder were unremarkable. The stomach contained some granular black material. There was no blood collection in the abdominal cavity.

The deceased a 27 years old male, was allegedly hit on the head with a timber by his brother at Maranu’u Village on 1^st February 2023, at approximately between 3-4 pm. It was stated that he died immediately after the incident.

An autopsy was done at Maranu’u Village on 3^rd February 2023. On external examination, the body was decomposed from the head to the feet with blisters. There were three abrasions on the upper limbs, posteriorly. There were no obvious or visible injuries on the other parts of the body.

On internal examination, there was haemorrhage under scalp on the right side of the head, occipital region. There was no skull fracture. No haematoma or haemorrhage was present on and in the brain. The neck tissues and muscles were decomposed. The neck spine and hyoid bone were not fractured. There was dark area in the chest wall that measured 70 x 30 mm wide and it could be due to haemorrhage or decomposition. The chest and abdominal organs were decomposed. The airways were clear with no obstruction. The aorta was smooth. The heart muscles thickness were normal. The left coronary artery of the heart was hardened but its lumen was opened. The right coronary artery as patent. The spleen and liver were not injured.

My opinion is that the cause of death for this case cannot be determined. There was, however evidence of trauma on the head where there was haemorrhage present on the right side at the back of the head. This was most likely the site where he was hit with the timber. Haematoma or haemorrhage was not identified on and in the brain; however, the presence of decomposition could have hindered them.

It was stated that he was drinking home-brew alcohol at around the time of death, thus, it was possible that this could contribute to his death.

It was also possible that he may have had a disease but the presence of decomposition also may have hindered it. The left coronary artery was hardened but its lumen was opened. The tissues of the brain, chest, and abdominal organs could not be taken for histological (microscopic) examination because of decomposition.

While the doctor’s report did not say what cause the various abrasion on the deceased body, it is presumed they resulted from the fight with the accused and when he fell down.

The Accused gave evidence on oath. In his evidence he admitted he whipped the deceased and Nehemiah because he was cross with them because he thinks they were lying to him about the homebrew drink. He said he hit Trevor and Nehemiah on their right shoulders. He said it was not a strong hit because he was drunk and weak.

Some of his evidence about the events of the day differs from the evidence of the prosecution but most are consistent with prosecution evidence. The contracting evidence however has nothing to do with the offence for which the accused was charged; they are mostly stories about their drinking and their movement on the day that Trevor died.

None of the witnesses gave evidence about how long after the deceased was hit and when he died. If he fell down and died at the same time he was hit, even without confirmation of the cause of death by the pathologist it can safely be inferred, that he died as result of the hit but this is not what happened in this case. In this case, evidence showed that he was involved in fight with accused after he was hit and ran after the accused to Nehemiah’s house and jumped to kick the Accused.

The issue for this Court to decide is ‘whether the prosecution has prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused caused the death of the deceased and whether the Accused had knowledge that his action will result in death or grievous bodily harm”.

There is no dispute that the accused hit the deceased with a piece of 3 x 1 inches timber, but the question is whether the deceased died because of that hit. The accused said he hit the deceased on his right shoulder white PW2 Mari Brox said he saw the accused hit the deceased on the back of his neck. The medical report however did not show any injury on the deceased body on the areas mentioned by PW2 and the accused. The medical report however show haemorrhage 70 x 70 mm wide under the scalp on the right side of the deceased head. PW4 said there evidence of trauma on the head where there was haemorrhage present on the right side at the back of the head. He said this was most likely the site where he was hit with the timber. I think the accused and PW2 were mistaken on where the timber landed on the deceased. That is possible because the areas they mentioned were close to the back of the head and when one is looking from a distance like PW2 he cannot really be sure where the timber landed. The Accused too may think that he hit the deceased on the right shoulder but actually the timber landed on the right back of the head. I accept the evidence of PW4 in that regard.

However, the pathologist PW 4 was unable to confirm that this hit caused the death of the deceased. He gave a number of things, which may possibly contribution to the cause of death, they included drinking homebrew on the day he died, from pre-existing diseases, heart attack and stress.

I had consider the evidence of the witness and the Accused. I also considered the submissions of counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defence, in which both summarised the evidence and refer to the law and relevant cases authorities relating to the charge against the Accused. Upon considered the evidence before the Court, the Court is unable to conclude that deceased died because the accused hit him with the piece of timber. Even if there was evidence of haemorrhage under scalp on the right side of the head, there is no evidence that this was the cause of death. There are other possible facts, which may have contribute to the death of the deceased as stated by the pathologist. The Court is therefore in doubt about the cause of death and therefore find that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that deceased died as a result of the Accused hitting him with the piece of timber. The doubt must inevitably go to the Accused favour and thus he must be acquitted of the charge of murder.

High Court of Solomon Islands

R v Taro [2025] SBHC 67; HCSI-CRC 390 of 2023 (5 May 2025)