Sui v Police [1994] WSCA 9; 16 1993 (29 March 1994)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF WESTERN SAMOA
HELD AT APIA

C.A. 16/93
BETWEEN:

UTUMAPU SUI

Appellant
AND:

THE POLICE

Respondent

Coram: The Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Bisson, President
The Hon. Sir John Jeffries
The Hon. Mr Justice Lussick

Hearing: 29 March 1994

Counsel: T.K Enari for Appellant
M.B. Edwards for Respondent

Judgment: 29 March 1994

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY SIR JOHN JEFFRIES

Before the Court is an appeal against conviction and sentence, imposed by the trial judge following the convictions.

The short facts are that appellant at the material time in June 1993 was employed by Fletcher Bluebird Joint Venture Company. It was discovered that property belonging to the employer had been taken from inside the compound at Lemafa apparently on days of 4, 6 and 13 June, and perhaps other days. Appellant was interviewed by an officer of the Criminal Investigation Section, Apia on 16 June 1993 and made quite an extensive caution statement.

We are informed by counsel that he and another man faced 8 charges pursuant to s. 85(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance 1961 for charges of theft as a servant.

They were tried before Justice Dillon in a joint trial on 14, 15 October 1993. In the result, 5 of the 8 charges related to appellant were dismissed and he was convicted on 3. As a result of those convictions on 2 November 1993, he was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment on each of those charges, with the terms to be served concurrently.

An appeal was lodged on his behalf and the next day he was bailed. The record of the hearing in the lower Court was placed before us, but the most obvious omission is that there are no reasons given why the trial Judge convicted appellant on 3 of the 8 charges. The fact that he was acquitted on 5 charges suggests that there might have been some difficulties in the prosecution case. We are also informed by the prosecution counsel that further charges had been brought before the trial but later not continued.

The appeal against conviction is on the basis that it was unreasonable in all the circumstances and against the weight of evidence. We find it impossible to embark on the hearing of an appeal against convictions in which prison sentences followed without the record of reasons why the trial Judge entered the convictions. It would be unfair to the appellant himself to hear the appeal and likewise unfair to the prosecution. The Court's hands are tied when there is no judgment available to be examined. The whole purpose of an appeal system is to find out the reasons why in the lower Court the decision was made and to decide whether there was any error. Without those reasons we could not embark upon hearing the appeal.

Therefore the only order the Court can make in these circumstances is to quash the 3 convictions and return the case to the lower Court for a new trial; and in case it can be of assistance we emphasize that an appeal system only works properly and fairly when reasons for decisions are made in Courts.

The appellant applied to the trial judge for bail pending an appeal and it was granted on the conditions that his travel documents be surrendered to the Registrar; that he paid $500.00 in cash as security in lieu of bail bond and that he reported to the CIB, Apia, Friday before 4.00pm. We think that we can omit the $500.00 cash as security and in lieu thereof we order that he sign a bail bond together with one surety, otherwise the two conditions of surrender of documents and reporting each Friday to the CIB Office remain. We further make an order that the $500.00 be refunded to appellant.

Solicitors:
Apa & Enari, Apia for Appellant
Attorney-General's Office, Apia for Respondent