Regina v Sala - Judgment [2015] SBMC 8; Criminal Case 379 of 2015 (31 August 2015)

IN THE CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT )
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS AT HONIARA )

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

Criminal Case No. 379 of 2015

REGINA

V

JERRY SALA

Prosecution: Palmer of Police Prosecution Office
Defence: Accused in person
Hearing: August 27-28, 2015
Judgment: August 31, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Charge

1. Mr. Jerry Sala ("the Accused") was charged with one count of criminal trespass contrary to section 189 (2) of the Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that on 4th of April 2015 at about 7:00pm, the Accused whilst drunk with alcohol illegally entered the premise of the National Parliament building. His entrance was unauthorized and occurred during an hour restricted from the public. When he was inside the fenced area, he approached a security guard who was working at that time and hit the security house twice with his hand. He also appeared uncooperative when he was questioned by that security guard. This caused fear to the security guard which prompted him to call for assistance from his colleague who was also working as a security guard. The Accused was later arrested by police for his alleged trespass combined with his uncooperative behavior at the premise of the National Parliament building.
   
2. The prosecution's case as understood from its verbal opening address is that the Accused's unauthorized entrance in the fence of the National Parliament building during that odd hour of that evening was without any lawful excuse. His action of hitting the security house whilst in the presence of the security officer namely Mathias Olofia who was tasked to look after that area caused Olofia to annoy. This made Olofia to call the other security officer to come and resulted in his arrest by the Police in that same night.
   
3. I noted that the Accused was unrepresented, hence, the Court must be fair to him during the trial. I accordingly mindful of this requirement and managed the trial fairly to ensure he exercisedall his right to fully participate in the trial without any biasness.
   
4. Before the trial, I indicated to the Accused that there is likelihood of non-custodial sentence if he changes his plea given the fact that he unequivocally admitted the commission of the offence during pretrial conference. I further indicated to him that he was not forced to change his plea but he has his right to contest his matter if he is of the view that he is in fact innocent of the allegation. After carefully considering his position, he decided to contest the trial and re-iterated to this Court that his defence was that he was told by God to carry out his work to those big men in the parliament. He said that he was from the Remnant Church of Israel and that was why he had to follow God's order otherwise God would destroy either those big men or perhaps the National Parliament building.
   

Elements of the Offence

5. In this case, the relevant elements of criminal trespass under section 189(2) of the Penal Code are as follows:
   

[1] Defendant

[2] Place

[3] Date

[4] Without lawful excuse

[5] Enter

[6] Night

[7] Yard/premise

[8] House of the complainant

6. The prosecution called two witnesses for this case. They were the two security officers namely Mathias Olofia [PW1] and Bradley Vaike [PW2].
   

Prosecution Case

7. PW1 gave evidence that he worked as a security officer for the National Parliament since November 2014. He stated that parliament has an admission rule to regulate public entry to the National Parliament. The rule ensures that there has to be an appointment either with the parliamentarians or any officer inside the Parliament before they allow any person to enter the Parliament premise. For parliamentarians, they would give a call first and upon approval, they would allow a person to enter the premise. The opening hours for public visitation from Monday to Friday are 8:00am to 4:30pm. Afterwards are considered restricted hours. He stated that at about 7:00pm on the 4th of April 2015 when he was at the main entrance gate of the Parliament area, he saw the Accused appeared inside the fenced area from a distance of 30 meters and walked towards him. The Accused was walking unsteadily or in other words not normal. When the Accused reached closer to him, he could smell beer from him. He stated that the Accused was drunk at that time. He asked the Accused why he entered the fence, who he wanted to see and where he was living in the town The Accused responded to him that the Parliament building area was owned by them because he was from Israel. The Accused started to appear uncooperative and hit the rail of the security guard house twice with his right hand. Because of his inappropriate actions, he was afraid and of the view that he was a criminal so he called his supervisor for assistance. His supervisor came and called police. Later Police attended to them and arrested the Accused.
   
8. When asked by the Accused whether he had any knowledge of a document he gave to one of their security officers later that day he denied that suggestion.
   
9. PW1 evidence was not challenged and un-contradicted all through out. I accept them in their entirety.
   
10. PW2 gave evidence that he also worked from 3:00pm to 11:00pm on that day when the Accused entered the parliament area. He was called upon to assist PW1 when Accused came in the fence. That was around 7:00pm. When he came closer to the Accused, he knew that he was drunk because he smelt beer and his appearance was not normal.The Accused was sitting on the ground. The Accused was later arrested by police on that same night. His evidence also corroborated PW1's version that the Accused appearance inside the Parliament area was at the restricted hour.
    
11. He also denied whether he had any knowledge of a document the Accused gave to one of their security officers later that day. If there was any document given to any security officer then he would have known about it.
    
12. The Prosecution closed its case.
    

Defence Case

13. The Accused gave evidence under oath that he had a dream since 2004 that he saw a person appeared to him with a walking stick and put a crown on his head. He continued to have those dream and on the night before the 4th of April 2015, he had the same dream and that person who appeared to him in the dream told him to go to those big men. The big men he referred to were those parliamentarians. The person who appeared to him in the dream was God. He said he was scared of disobeying God because he feared God would angry and destroy either those big men or the parliament building. He said that on that evening of the 4th of April 2015, he finally decided to do that work that God told him to do. So he drank 6 cans of SB beer, walked past SA bottle shop and went up the hill towards the fence of the Parliament building. That was between 7-8pm. He crawled under the fence and walked towards the security officer. He admitted that he was drunk at that time. He also admitted that he hit the security house with his hand twice that night and told the security officer that he was doing God's work when he entered the parliament that night. He further stated that since he was drunk that time, it was his intention to preach to other person(if he meet any) who may also drunk that night.
    
14. In cross examination, he did not deny the allegation made against him and maintained what he said in his evidence. He agreed to the following suggestions:
    
    • The fence area of the parliament meant that it was restricted from the public as like in his case
      
    • It would be proper to see those big men if he was not drunk
      
    • He was angry because he did not receive any response from the document that he gave to a security officer
      
    • He was angry that was why he went there that night
      
15. He disagreed that he had to seek permission before he could enter into the parliament premise because he was sent by God.
    

Analysis of the Evidence and the Law

16. In all criminal trials it is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. That burden remains with the prosecution throughout the trial[1].The defence do not have to prove that his version is preferable, hehas no burden to prove anything at all.
    
17. If the prosecution does not satisfy me of each of the elements of the offence of criminal trespass to that high standard and any reasonable doubt remains as to his guilt, the accused is to be given the benefit of that doubt and is to be acquitted.
    
18. In this case, I find the following elements totally un-contradicted and clearly overwhelming during the trial as also supported by the Accused own admission: The identity of the Accused, the place where the incident occurred was at the National Parliament premise, the offence occurred on the 4th of April 2015, the Accused had gained entrance into the fence, he was seen at about 7:00pm which clearly at night[2], the area where the Accused entered was the premise or the yard area of the National Parliament. I took judicial notice of the owner of the National Parliament building as owned by the Solomon Islands Government. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved those elements beyond reasonable doubt.
    
19. The only two issues for me to decide are first; whether his defence that he was told by God to carry out his work when he entered the parliament premise was available to him on the charge of criminal trespass. Second, whether his entrance by crawling under the fence into the National Parliament fenced area in that restricted hour at that night was without lawful excuse.
    
20. The first issue can be answered by looking at therelevant facts of this case against the nature of his defence. The absence of it would be considered as mere invention.
    
21. The evidence showed that he was drunk with SB beer when he went to carry out God's work. I find it hard to understand whether he was really told by God to do his work on these few obvious areas:
    
    • First, whether it is acceptable or a good religious practice to any religious belief for a person to do God's work whilst drunk like the Accused. I am of the view that any right minded Christian in our country would no doubt disagree with this;
      
    • Second, given his state of drunkenness at that time, whether there would be any person in his/her right mind would convict/repent from sin upon hearing him preaching God's word. Unless for some unknown reason, I would also disagree with this;
      
    • Third, he was not able to assist the Court on which biblical verse that explicitly stated that it is good for Christians to be drunk with alcohol and carry out God's work as claimed by the Accused. His failure to assist the Court only rendered him as an unreliable and patently untruthful witness who this Court cannot rely on; and
      
    • Fourth, it would at least make sense to his intention that night to preach to other drunkards if he goes to a night club or bar other than the parliament. The parliament premise is one of the most respected areas in our country. That is why it was manned by security officers day and night. It is normally occupied by our national leaders who are responsible for making decision for our country and should not be confused with a night club or bar. To think that the National Parliament premise would be filled with drunkards especially at that late hour does not make sense at all and clearly absurd.
      
22. Given the absence of an express provision that provides for this type of defencefor criminal trespass offences and these obvious findings that clearly operate against the his purported defence, I therefore simply reject this defence that he was told by God to carry out his work when he entered the parliament premise.
    
23. Since I rejected his defence, the only issue for me to consider is whether his entrance by crawling under the fence of the National Parliament area in that restricted hour that night was without lawful excuse. PW1 and PW2 evidence showed that he was present inside the fenced area at about 7:00pm already a restricted time. He was drunk that time and hit the rail of the security guard twice with his right hand. His own admission also revealed that he was angry when he went up the parliament and made entry into the premise by crawling under the fence because he did not receive any response from a document that he purportedly gave to one officer earlier during that day. I find this is his real intention of going into the parliament area that night. Clearly, he disagreed for not receiving any feedback from the document he gave to a security officer earlier that day. His aggressive and un-cooperative behavior as closely observed by Olofia clearly supported that finding. The reaction by Olofia to call his supervisor for assistance is the obvious response expected of a security officer when confronting with this kind of situation. Clearly, he was annoyed of his action, which eventually prompted them to request police to arrest the Accused that night.
    
24. The overall tenor of these evidences demonstrated that his entry was unauthorized and clearly without any lawful excuse. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this element has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
    

Conclusion

25. Based on those findings, I reject the evidence of the Accused as illogical, does not make sense, not credible and clearly untruthful. I accept the evidence of the prosecution as truthful, coherent, logical, un-contradicted and inherently clear. Thus, its evidence demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused Mr. Jerry Sala entered the premise of the National Parliament at that night without any lawful excuse.
    
26. Accordingly, I convict him for one count of criminal trespass contrary to section 189 (2) of the Penal Code.
    

THE COURT

Augustine Aulanga (Mr)
(Magistrate of the First Class)

---

^[1]Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462.
^[2] Also see section 4 of the Penal Code for the definition of “night”