R v Kobulu [2007] SBMC 1; CMCSI-CRC Nos 1326-1329 of 2007 (31 July 2007)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case Nos.: CRC. 1326, 1327, 1328 & 1329/2007/CMC

R

v

David Kobulu
Daniel Mamuilao
Luke Boinago
Betris Wale

Date of Hearing: 31^st July 2007
Time: 1.00 pm

Coram: Esther Lelapitu (M)
Pros.: Ricky Iomea (DPP)

Accused & Defence:

(A1) David Kobulu: CRC. 1326/2007/CMC Rept. by Maelyn Bird
(A2) Daniel Mamuilao: CRC. 1327/2007/CMC]
(A3) Luke Boinago: CRC. 1328/2007/CMC] Rept by George Squir
(A4) Betris Wale: CRC. 1329/2007/CMC]

RULING

This is an application for remand by Crown that the 4 Accused were arrested and charge with various charges. One (1) Accused was charge with Uttering c/s 343(i) of the Penal Code and the other 3 Accused were charge with Receiving c/s 313(i) of the Penal Code.

This is their first appearance before Court after they were arrested.

The Crown application for Remand is in their submission. This is a fresh matter and the 5 Accused were arrested and involved in a big amount of money. The facts are not similar and oppose bail.

There were also reason given on the grounds of remand to abide to their remand application for all 4 Accused.

The Court had picked each ground from each Accused:

Grounds:

(1) Big amount of money involved amount to $600,000.00.

(2) Police still investigate.

(3) Money at this stage not yet recovered.

(4) Co-Suspects still at large.

(5) Police believes a forgery act committed.

(6) Police are establishing warrant for document and information pertaining to defendants' savings at the Commercial Banks (NBSI, ANZ and Westpac).

(7) The evidence against to one of the suspect includes video surveillance and witnesses's statement.

(8) Police believe that Defendants should have known that the money was stolen due to relationship for the past two years.

(9) A Senior Bank Officer on the 20/06/2007, the Accused received a large sum of money OF $25,000.00.

The 4 Accused were legally represented.

The 3 Accused; Betris Wale, Luke Boinago and Daniel Mamuilao were represented by Mr. George Squir.

He argued that 3 of his clients should release on bail raises issue on livelihood and bail should be considered. The Crown had not finished their investigation. The presumption of innocent on the forgery. The couple have 5 children and the youngest is 6 months. It's not fair that both be Remand in Custody. The 3 Defendants have permanent address where they can turn up to bail condition if granted.

Maelyn Bird represented David Kobulu and apply for bail condition. According to the facts, the Accused had received $84,000.00 and in the charge with $24,000.00 due to the fact that $60,000.00 was return to Betris Wale. Maelyn further stated that her client got permanent resident and children at school. He worked for more than 20 years. Maelyn argue that the summary provide by Crown his client had no knowledge where the money came from. He have the knowledge of sell of land by Betris Wale. The summary have no evidence. It is clear that he sold his vehicle to Betris Wale and he was not charge with forgery.

The Police still investigate while he be grant on bail condition with Sureties. In addition her client got a medical report in support to his bail application.

Any bail application is about freedom from detention. Freedom from detention is a constitutional right of individuals that being a freedom of personal liberty. It is a right that can however be deemed by the Court in certain circumstances. The circumstance in which a person may be denied his or her freedom of liberty one set out in section 5(1) of the Constitution. The right to freedom is therefore not and absolute right. It is a right that is qualified by exception. The granting or otherwise of that relief depend upon the discretion of the Court based upon the evidence before it. Bail as a matter of practice through them of course limitation. The present application is first since they were arrest recently.

The usual argument in bail application such as this strength of Crown case family circumstances and lot others.

The Court understand that the 4 Defendants are first time offenders with no previous bad record but on the other side, on the balance I am satisfied the Magistrate has addressed the material principle affecting the exercise of discretion to refuse bail.

Although couples involved have 5 children and youngest is 6 months and the other Defendant is under medical grounds and all of them have fixed addresses, they have to face the consequence the surrounding of this matter. The Court on the other hands see the circumstance surrounding that the involvement of big amount of money and other support Co-accused still at large with no recovery.

I am not hesitate and in granting the application by Crown that the 4 Defendants be Remand in Custody for 14 days (until 14^th August 2007) while Police is investigating the matter.

Bail application is still open for next appearance.

Esther Lelapitu
Magistrate

31/07/07