Public Prosecutor v Banga [2004] VUSC 30; Criminal Case 034 of 2004 (16 November 2004)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Criminal Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL CASE No. 34 of 2004

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

-v-

RELSON BANGA

RULING ON VOIR DIRE

This is a trial within a trial. The defence challenges the admissibility of the Interview Statements in which the Defendant made admissions of allegations made against herself. The defence challenges the way of questioning and the circumstances under which it was done.

The Defendant is charged with Intentional homicide, contrary to Section 106 of the Penal Code. She was interviewed by Inspector Vuti at Police Station, Vila, in the presence of Sergeant Diana Willie, another police woman.

The law as to conducting interviews is set out in the judgment of Court of Appeal in Tor v. PP, [2003] VUCA 2; Criminal Appeal Case No. 06 of 2003.

The facts of the present case are different and distinguishable from the Tor case.

I have assessed the evidence of the prosecution and the defence.

There was no evidence of force, threat on 26 August 2004 at 4.00AM. The family of the Defendant brought the Defendant into the police station. They then went back home. AT 7.30AM police brought her to the police station for interview. There was no evidence of force or threat. The caution was read and explained to the Defendant. She understood it before she wrote down her name.

On the overall evidence of the Defendant, she identifies that her answer to question 32 on the interview statement is lightly different from the answer in question 32. I accept that part and direct that answer given by the Defendant to question 32 be struck out although there is no impediment on the ultimate consideration.

The Defendant and prosecution witness say the interview was cooperative, friendly. The Defendant says she gave the answers she wanted to give. The answer given is voluntarily made.

In this case, on the evidence, a proper caution had been administered to the Defendant before questions were asked. The Defendant was not unwilling to be questioned and make answers; apart from question 32 and the answers given under the circumstances described which ended up with the striking out of answer to question 32 in the interview, there was no insistence or pressure by the two(2) police officers before and during the interview.

There were complaint about the pressure made on the Complainant. I have heard evidence. I am satisfied that there is no pressure put on her. The Defendant’s evidence of her reluctance of being photographed was because of the presence of Peter Tari.

The conclusion is that the interview statement is admitted save answer to question 32 which is struck out.

DATED at Port-Vila this 16^th day of November 2004

BY THE COURT

Vincent LUNABEK
Chief Justice