DC974

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL (COMMITTAL) JURISDICTION

COM 212 - 219 of 2009

BETWEEN:

STEVEN YALAMU
Informant

AND:

KATHRINE MAL
Defendant

Madang: E Wilmot

2009: 26 OCTOBER 2009

CRIMINAL - hand up brief – Accused is charged with the following; two Counts of Urging, Etc, Unlawful Killing; one count wilful murder contrary to Section 299(1); Attempted Murder Contrary To Section 304(a)(b); Attempted To Commit arson Contrary To Section 437(a); One Count Of Unlawfully Destroys Urging, ETC., to .unlawful killing Y contrary to Section 444(1); one count of accessory after the fact contrary to Section 305 and Section 10 and one count removing property under lawful seizures contrary to Section 143.

Question as to sufficiency of evidence to commit Accused to stand trial for the charges mention. 

Cases Cited

List Cases Chronologically

References

List Legislation In Alphabetical Order

Counsel

Sgt Patrick Nanao, for the Informant
Agnes Meten (Public Solicitors for the Accused
02 December 2005
E Wilmot DCM:

Introduction:

1.	The Accused Catherine Mal has been charged with eight counts stated as the following; two Counts of Urging, Etc, Unlawful Killing; one count wilful murder contrary to Section 299(1); Attempted Murder Contrary To Section 304(a)(b); Attempted To Commit arson Contrary To Section 437(a); One Count Of Unlawfully Destroys Urging, ETC., to contrary to Section 444(1); one count of accessory after the fact contrary to Section 305 and Section 10 and one count removing property under lawful seizures contrary to Section 143.

Brief Facts:

2.	It is alleged that on the afternoon of 28 February 2009 between 400 and 500 pm a fight broke out at four mile market between Keith Mal, Lotivi Mal, Seth Mal, Onen Mal, Emmanuel Mal, Gilbert Elia and another person Mathew Sakel.

3.	It is alleged that Keith Mal, Lotivi Mal, Seth Mal, Onen Mal, Emmanuel Mal, Gilbert Elia were drunk at the time and approached Mathew Sakel and surrounded him inside four mile market swore and abused him using abusive words.

4.	It is alleged that Keith Mal slapped Mathew Sakel and told him to go and bring his people so they would fight.

5.	When one of Mathew Sakel’s friends tried to intervene and stopped the fight Keith Mal turned and assaulted him. He other persons namely Keith Mal, Lotivi Mal, Seth Mal, Onen Mal, Emmanuel Mal, Gilbert Elia fought off anyone who tried to intervene to stop the fight. There they chased Mathew Sakel and those who tried to stop the fight out of the market. It is alleged that at this time Gilbert Elia stabbed an unknown person from Gum, but that person ran away.

6.	At this time her accomplices; Keith Mal, Lotivi Mal, Seth Mal, Onen Mal, Emmanuel Mal, Gilbert Elia and few others who were drunk started assaulting innocent bystanders as they proceeded to the four mile junction.

7.	On their way to the four mile junction they assaulted one Sogi martin. Lotivi Mal got a dried coconut stalk and hit Mrs Martin on the back and slapped her on her face and spit on her face. They also confronted Jacklyn Sakel and accused her husband of using sorcery to kill him. Keith Mal insulted her and accused her husband of sorcery and threatens to kill her husband, Kelly Sakel.

8.	On arriving at the four mile junction they saw the deceased Daga Nanas and Kelly Sakel and some boys from the village at a small market place near the road. They Keith Mal, Lotivi Mal, Seth Mal, Onen Mal, Emmanuel Mal, and Gilbert Elia confronted the deceased and Kelly and the boys. An argument started with her accomplices Keith Mal, Lotivi Mal, Seth Mal, Onen Mal, Emmanuel Mal, and Gilbert Elia inciting them to fight.

9.	It is alleged that at this time Kelly told her accomplices to put down their weapons and fight with their bare hands. Her accomplices refused to put their weapons down. Keith Mal is alleged to have said to Kelly Sakel “bipo mipela bin katim yu tasol nau bai mipela salim yu go long mok.

10.	The decease was however trying to calm the situation down, but his pleas fell on deaf ears.

11.	It is alleged that while this was going on the Accused arrived in her green ford utility registration LAW 664 and stopped on the road. the Accused then drove up the hill to where the road side market was, where the arguments was transpiring, in an attempt to run over some boys who were with the deceased and Kelly Sakel.

12.	It is alleged that from there the Accused gave the verbal order, shouting “Kilim ol, kilim ol.”

13.	When her accomplices heard the command they split into two groups and attached Kelly Sakel and the deceased while the accused watched.

14.	During this fight Gilbert Elia armed with a US knife, Onen Mal armed with a piece of timber, and several other armed with sticks stones slingshots attacked Kelly seriously injuring him. He fell unconscious to the ground. 

15.	While he was on the ground Gilbert Elia tried to stab him on the ground but a sMall boy kicked Elia on the elbow resulting in the knife falling to the ground. The boy retrieved the knife. It was later given to the Police.

16.	In the other group allegedly led by Emmanuel Ong, Keith Mal Lotivi Mal and other attacked the deceased. During their attack on the deceased Emmanuel Ong armed with a three corner iron hit the deceased on his mouth causing the deceased to fall to the ground. While the deceased was lying on the ground Emmanuel Ong hit the deceased again on the face. The deceased was lying face up with his mouth open. Keith Mal then got a US knife and thrust the knife into the deceased open mouth three times. On the third time Keith is alleged to have twisted the knife in the deceased mouth causing the knife to cut and smash the deceased tongue, teeth and flesh.

17.	It is alleged the deceased lay dead on the ground Lotivi Mal got a bush knife and chopped the deceased on the head while Seth Mal used a sling shot to shot the deceased in the eye. Onen Mal then got a piece of shade tree and hit the deceased again this time on the stomach. This caused heavy blood to pour out of the deceased mouth.

18.	While the two groups were attacking, it is alleged that Moses Mal armed with a pistol was pointing and threaten to shoot, while Seth Mal Joraia Sangeng, Steven Kolau Anong Sangeng and Onen Mal armed with sticks slingshots and stones attacked the other boys preventing them to come to the aid of the deceased and Kelly Sakel.

19.	As a result Daga Nanas was killed and Kelly was seriously injured.

20.	After this her accomplices ran to the road. The accused was there, the Accused reversed her car onto the road picked up her accomplices and drove to Talim.

21.	In Talim the accused the verbally ordered her accomplices to burn down the deceased house and destroy his properties.

22.	Lotivi Mal was seen smashing the windscreens of two cars belonging to the deceased that were parked under his house. They then set the deceased tool the Accusedd on fire.

23.	Seth Mal broke into another house belonging to Diane Kununga and searched the house. On their return the accomplices went back to the vehicle and the accused drove them off.

24.	The alleged murder of the deceased was reported to the Police by the relatives of the deceased.

25.	On the 1st of March 2009 after interviewing witnesses the Police proceeded to Wafen Village and located the accused. The Accused was interviewed and asked to surrender to the Police.

26.	The Police gave till 400pm for the accused to bring the suspects to the Police. At 500pm the accused fronted up at the Police station and advised them, that the accomplices’ refused to surrender because they did not commit murder.

27.	On 5th May 2009 at 600pm the Police arrested one Emmanuel Ong Mal at Madang lodge car park as he was about to drive out. He was detained at Jomba. The suspect vehicle was also detained for forensic examination and photographing.

28.	The vehicle never got to be forensic examination nor photographed. It is alleged that while being locked up at Jomba the accused came with a spare key and removed the car from impound.

29.	On 11 March 2009 only 8 of the 18 suspects were handed in by their counsel Thomas Elisa. The accused did not turn up at the time.

30.	On 8 may 2009 through her then lawyer Thomas Elisa an interview with the organised. This did not eventuate. The Accused was questioned on the 25 of May 2009, this was suspended at 12 pm. it resumed after lunch but on the request of the accused it was put off to the next day. The interview resumed at 140pm the next day and suspended again at 300pm. on 27 may no interview was conducted.

31.	On 10 June 2009 at 144pm the interview resumed, during the whole interview process the Accused maintained her innocence. The Accused was formally arrested on 9 June 2009 at 215om.

ISSUE:

32.	Whether there is sufficient evidence to put the Accused on trial for the offences to which the Accused is charged.

The law:

308. URGING, ETC., UNLAWFUL KILLING.

A person who–

incites, encourages, urges, counsels or commands the unlawful killing of another person; or

does or omits to do any act for the purpose of facilitating, enabling or assisting the unlawful killing of another person,

is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

(2) For the purposes of SubSection (1), it is immaterial that–

no specific person was incited, encouraged, urged, counselled, commanded, enabled or assisted to kill; or

the killing of no specific person was incited, encouraged, urged, counselled, commanded, facilitated, enabled or assisted; or

no person was in fact killed.

299. WILFUL MURDER.

Subject to the succeeding provisions of this Code, a person who unlawfully kills another person, intending to cause his death or that of some other person, is guilty of wilful murder.

A person who commits wilful murder shall be liable to be sentenced to death.

304. ATTEMPTED MURDER, ETC.

A person who–

attempts unlawfully to kill another person; or

with intent unlawfully to kill another person does any act, or omits to do any act that it is his duty to do, the act or omission being of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life,

is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.

437. ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT ARSON.

A person who–

attempts unlawfully to set fire to any thing referred to in Section 436; or

wilfully and unlawfully sets fire to any thing that is so situated that any thing referred to in Section 436 is likely to catch fire from it,

is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

444. MALICIOUS INJURIES IN GENERAL: PUNISHMENT IN SPECIAL CASES.

(1) A person who wilfully and unlawfully destroys or damages any property is guilty of an offence that, unless otherwise stated, is a misdemeanour.

Penalty: If no other punishment is provided by this section–imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) If an offence against Subsection (1) is committed by night, the offender is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

7. PRINCIPAL OFFENDERS.

When an offence is committed, each of the following persons shall be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it:–

every person who actually does the act or makes the omission that constitutes the offence;

every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence;

every person who aids another person in committing the offence;

any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.

In SubSection (1)(d), the person may be charged with–

committing the offence; or

counselling or procuring its commission.

A conviction of counselling or procuring the commission of an offence entails the same consequences in all respects as a conviction of committing the offence.

Any person who procures another to do or omit to do any act of such a nature that, if he had himself done the act or made the omission, it would have constituted an offence on his part, is–

guilty of an offence of the same kind; and

liable to the same punishment,

as if he had done the act or made the omission, and may be charged with himself doing the act or making the omission.

305. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT TO MURDER, ETC.

A person who becomes an accessory after the fact to wilful murder or murder is guilty of a crime.

Penalty: Subject to Section 19, imprisonment for life.

10. ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT.

A person who receives or assists another who is, to his knowledge, guilty of an offence, in order to enable him to escape punishment, is an accessory after the fact to the offence.

A married woman does not become an accessory after the fact to an offence of which her husband is guilty–

by receiving or assisting him in order to enable him to escape punishment; or

by receiving or assisting, in her husband’s presence and by his authority, another person who is guilty of an offence in the commission of which her husband has taken part, in order to enable that other person to escape punishment.

A married man does not become an accessory after the fact to an offence of which his wife is guilty by receiving or assisting her in order to enable her to escape punishment.

143. REMOVING, ETC., PROPERTY UNDER LAWFUL SEIZURE.

A person who, when any property has been attached or taken under the process or authority of any court, knowingly, and with intent to hinder or defeat the attachment or process, receives, removes, retains, conceals, or disposes of the property is guilty of a misdemeanour.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTAL COURT

33.	The committal proceeding is not intended to determine the innocence or the guilt of a Accused and cannot result in an acquittal: SCR No. 34 of 2005 – Review Pursuant to the Constitution Section 155(20(b) the Application of Herman Leahy.

34.	The question that is posed in committal process is whether or not a prima facie case is established against the Accused. In other words it is the strength of the evidence put forward by the prosecution (Bukoya -v- State SC 887 (17 October 2007)

Standard of proof

35.	The standard of proof in committal proceedings is stated in Regina –v- McEachern where it held:

36.	To decide that the evidence offered by the prosecution in committal proceedings is sufficient to put the Accused to trial ...... the court has only to form a bona fide opinion that there is sufficient prima facie case against the Accused.

37.	This measure of this standard is much less then the standard in trial where it must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consideration of court

38.	In order to consider whether there is a prima facie case against the accused this court must weight the elements of the charges against the facts on this case. And this can only be done by looking at the set of facts and the charge.

39.	On the two counts to urger to unlawfully Kill one Daga Nanas and Kelly Sakel the relevant facts are: 

40.	On the charge of urging to unlawfully kill two counts are laid by the Police one in relation to the allege killing of one Daga Nanas and the other of attempted killing of Kelly Sakel. 

41.	The information is arises from the same set of facts. The relevant alleged facts are that the Accused arrived in her green ford utility registration LAW 664 and stopped on the road. the Accused then drove up the hill to where the road side market was, where the arguments was transpiring, in an attempt to run over some boys who were with the deceased and Kelly Sakel.

42.	It is alleged that from there the Accused gave the verbal order, shouting “Kilim ol, kilim ol.”

43.	When her accomplices heard the command they split into two groups and attached Kelly Sakel and the deceased while the accused watched.

Elements of the Offences

44.	the elements of this charge for urging to kill one Daga Nanas and one Kelly Sakel are :

45.	That a person who 

46.	Incites encourages, urges, counsels or commands the unlawful killing of another

47.	Further on the both counts that fact that Sakel was not killed is immaterial. It is also immaterial that there was no specific person was name to be killed.

The evidence:

48.	Eye witness statements of people there at the night in question clearly identify her vehicle and her command to the accomplices. the eye witness accounts Kelly Sakel; jacklyn Sakel; Penile Uta; Winton Bel; Mazon Matarab; gill Sakel to name a few all saw the accused urge her accomplishes to kill. And the reaction of her accomplices after the order was given.

49.	On these two counts the court find there is prima facie case against the defendant.

50.	on the count of wilful murder the relevant facts are:

51.	It is alleged that from there the Accused gave the verbal order, shouting “Kilim ol, kilim ol.”

52.	When her accomplices heard the command they split into two groups and attached Kelly Sakel and the deceased while the accused watched.

53.	On the count of murder, it is alladged the other group allegedly led by Emmanuel Ong, Keith Mal Lotivi Mal and others attacked the deceased. During their attack on the deceased Emmanuel Ong armed with a three corner iron hit the deceased on his mouth causing the deceased to fall to the ground. While the deceased was lying on the ground Emmanuel Ong hit the deceased again on the face. The deceased was lying face up with his mouth open. Keith Mal then got a US knife and thrust the knife into the deceased open mouth three times. On the third time Keith is alleged to have twisted the knife in the deceased mouth causing the knife to cut and smash the deceased tongue, teeth and flesh.

54.	It is alleged the deceased lay dead on the ground Lotivi Mal got a bush knife and chopped the deceased on the head while Seth Mal used a sling shot to shot the deceased in the eye. Onen Mal then got a piece of shade tree and hit the deceased again this time on the stomach. This caused heavy blood to pour out of the deceased mouth.

55.	On the information of the charge of willful Murder the elements are 

person who unlawfully kills 

another person, 

intending to cause his death 

or that of some other person.

56.	It is allege that the Accused committed willful murder on one Daga nanas. The evidence provided by the witnesses show the Accused did not actually take part in the beating of the deceased that lead to his death. However with the invocation of Section seven this court finds that the Accused did not take steps to prevent the beating of the deceased. In fact it is alleged the Accused watch the whole incident take place. The whisked the offenders away.

57.	the court invokes Section (7)(1) of the Criminal Code of Papua New Guinea reads When an offence is committed the following persons shall be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and to be guilty of the offence, and may be charged with actually committing it

every person who does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling or aiding another person to commit the offence;

every person who aids another person in committing the offence;

any person who counsels or procures any other person to commit the offence.

Evidence

58.	Eye witness statements of people there at the night in question clearly identify her vehicle and her command to the accomplices. the eye witness accounts Ludwina Daga; Murphy Daga, Penile Uta; ; Mazon Matarab; Gill Sakel to name a few all saw the accused urge her accomplishes to kill. And the reaction of her accomplices after the order was given.

59.	They saw what the accused accomplices did to one Daga Namas and what led to his death.

60.	The Court by invoking Section 7 of the code this court finds that the Accused did not take steps to prevent the beating of Kelly Sakel. In fact it is alleged the Accused watch the whole incident take place and aided her accomplices by whisking them away from the scene.

61.	On this the court find there is prima facie evidence on this count. 

62.	on the count of Attempted Murder the relevant facts are During this fight Gilbert Elia armed with a US knife, Onen Mal armed with a piece of timber, and several other armed with sticks stones slingshots attacked Kelly seriously injuring him. He fell unconscious to the ground. 

63.	While he was on the ground Gilbert Elia tried to stab him on the ground but penile uta kicked Elia on the elbow resulting in the knife falling to the ground. he retrieved the knife and later given to the Police.

64.	Elements are.

A person who–

attempts unlawfully 

to kill another person; 

or

with intent 

unlawfully to kill another person 

does any act, or omits to do any act that it is his duty to do, 

the act or omission being of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life.

65.	It is allege that the Accused committed attempted murder on one Kelly Sakel. The evidence provided by the witnesses show the Accused did not actually take part in the beating and to stab him on the ground. However with the invocation of Section 7 of the code this court finds that the Accused did not take steps to prevent the beating of Kelly Sakel. In fact it is alleged the Accused watch the whole incident take place. The whisked the offenders’ away. 

Evidence

66.	Eye witness statements of people there at the night in question clearly identify her vehicle and her command to the accomplices. the eye witness accounts Kelly Sakel; jacklyn Sakel; Penile Uta; Nellie uta; Winton Bel; Mazon Matarab; Gill Sakel to name a few all saw the accused urge her accomplishes to kill. And the reaction of her accomplices after the order was given.

67.	They saw what the accused accomplices did to one Daga Namas and what led to his death.

68.	By invoking Section 7 of the code this court finds that the Accused did not take steps to prevent the beating of Kelly Sakel. In fact it is alleged the Accused watch the whole incident take place and aided her accomplices by whisking them away from the scene.

69.	On this the court find there is prima facie evidence on this count. 

70.	on the charge of attempt to commit arson under Section 437 of the code.

Facts

71.	The relevant facts as alleged are as follows. On arriving at the deceased house… In Talim the accused the verbally ordered her accomplices to burn down the deceased house and destroy his properties.

72.	Lotivi Mal was seen smashing the windscreens of two cars belonging to the deceased that were parked under his house. They then set the deceased tool shed on fire. the fire was later put out.

The elements of this charge are:

.A person who

(b) wilfully and unlawfully sets fire to 

any thing that is so situated that any thing referred to in Section 436 is likely to catch fire from it,

73.	the thing referred to in Section 436 of the code are listed below:

74.	(a) a building or structure, whether completed or not; or

(b) a vessel, whether completed or not; or

(c) a stack of cultivated vegetable produce; or

(d) a stack of mineral or vegetable fuel; or

(e) a mine, or the workings, fittings or appliances of a mine; or

(f) an aircraft or motor vehicle,

Evidence

75.	Eye witness statements of people there at the night in question clearly identify her vehicle and her command to the accomplices. the eye witness accounts Kami musi; daine kununga; hearing her give the order to burn the tool shed destroy the properties of the deceased.

76.	By invoking Section 7 of the code this court finds that the Accused did not take steps to prevent the burning of the tool shed, but infact she conspired t with her accomplices to commit the arson.

77.	On this the court find there is prima facie evidence on this count. 

On the count of MALICIOUS INJURIES IN GENERAL: PUNISHMENT IN SPECIAL CASES.

(1) A person who wilfully and unlawfully destroys or damages any property is guilty of an offence that, unless otherwise stated, is a misdemeanour.

Penalty: If no other punishment is provided by this section–imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) If an offence against Subsection (1) is committed by night, the offender is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

1.	The relevant facts are at the deceased house Lotivi Mal was seen smashing the windscreens of two cars belonging to the deceased that were parked under his house. They then set the deceased tool shed fire. The fire was later put out.

2.	the law says A person who wilfully and unlawfully destroys or damages any property is guilty of an offence that, unless otherwise stated, is a misdemeanour.

3.	The accused again did not take part in the destruction of the deceased cars but the Accused did give the command and reading this charge with Section 7 of the code it implies the Accused did do the act.

4.	The elements of the charge:

•	A person 

•	wilfully and unlawfully destroys or damages any property 

Evidence

78.	Eye witness statements of people there at the night in question clearly identify her vehicle and her command to the accomplices. the eye witness accounts Kami Musi; Daine kununga; all heard the accused urge her accomplishes to and ordered them to burn the tool shed.

79.	By invoking Section 7 of the code this court finds that the Accused did not take steps to prevent the burning of the tool shed, but in fact she conspired with her accomplices to commit the arson.

80.	On this the court find there is prima facie evidence on this count. 

81.	On the count of accessory after the fact pursuant to Section 305 of the code this court states this.

Facts:

82.	On the 1st of March 2009 after interviewing witnesses the Police proceeded to Wafen Village and located the accused. The Accused was interviewed and asked to surrender to the Police.

83.	The Police gave till 400pm for the accused to bring the suspects to the Police. At 500pm the accused fronted up at the Police station and advised them, that the accomplices’ refused to surrender because they did not commit murder.

84.	On 5th May 2009 at 600pm the Police arrested one Emmanuel Ong Mal at Madang lodge car park as he was about to drive out. He was detained at Jomba. The suspect vehicle was also detained for forensic examination and photographing.

Element

A person 

who becomes an accessory after the fact 

to wilful murder or murder

Evidence

85.	The evidence of Ray ban give the accused a list of suspect they needed to question when they saw her at her residence at Wafen Village. That after giving the names of the accused the accused never came forward with the people listed on the list.

86.	The accused her son was also on the list required for questioning. It was only later that the accused son was arrested and detained while trying to drive out of Madang Lodge. She also knew the other accomplices but did not assist the police. She had knowledge of this but did nothing to aid the investigation.

87.	On this the court find there is prima facie evidence on this count.

88.	On the charge of Section 143 (REMOVING, ETC., PROPERTY UNDER LAWFUL SEIZURE) of the Code.

89.	On 5th May 2009 at 600pm the Police arrested one Emmanuel Ong Mal at Madang lodge car park as he was about to drive out. He was detained at Jomba. The suspect vehicle was also detained for forensic examination and photographing.

90.	The vehicle never got to be forensic examination nor photographed. It is alleged that while being locked up at Jomba the accused came with a spare key and removed the car from impound.

Elements:

A person who, 

when any property 

has been taken under the process 

knowingly, and with intent 

to hinder process, removes, of the property is guilty of a misdemeanour.

Evidence

91.	The evidence of Aloisius Gabe stating that the accused herself admitted to removing the car from the impound using a spare key.

92.	On this count this court finds there is prima facile evidence.

Consideration of witness statements:

93.	The case relies on the witness statements of 42 witness statement. This court has gone through and studied each statement. It has only mentioned a few in its consideration to make a finding. It has weight the statement and finds that in all statements provided there is corroboration by other witnesses.

This courts findings:

94.	by invoking section 7 of the code on some of the offences the accused is charged with generally happens when the accused has had a hand in committing the offence but did not actually take part in committing of the offence

95.	In all but one of the offences it is alleged she gave the command and her accomplices’ acted on these commands. the facts that she did not act or omitted to act to quell or calm the situation only goes to show her intent to commit those offences.

96.	This court is of the view that she was in a position of control over her accomplices. 

97.	This court finds that there is sufficient evidence or prima facie evidence on all. 

98.	The standard to which this court has applied is that below the standard in a criminal trial on each of the charges laid. This court has considered the evidence in its totality and commits the accused to stand trial at the National court.

99.	the court will now administer section 96 of the district court act.

E Wilmot (DCM)

Patrick Nanao for the Informant
Agnes Meten (Public Solicitors Lawyers) for the Accused