Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Regina v Tagaraniana [1993] SBHC 26; HC-CC 342 of 1993 (8 October 1993)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 342 of 1993

REGINA

-v-

CHRISTOPHER TAGARANIANA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria CJ.)

Hearing: 7th October 1993
Decision: 8th October 1993

DECISION

MURIA CJ: This matter arose out of the absence of Mr. Tagaraniana from the court during the murder trial of an accused person for whom counsel, Mr. Tagaraniana, acted.

On Tuesday 5th October 1993 the court adjourned the hearing of the murder trial to 9.00 am on Wednesday 6th October 1993. When the court was about to sit on Wednesday morning, it was discovered that counsel, Mr. Tagaraniana, had not yet turned up in court. The Assistant Registrar of High Court then made a check and confirmed to me that Mr. Tagaraniana had not yet turned up in court.

Consequently the resumption of the trial was delayed to 9.45 a.m. When the court resumed at 9.45 a.m., the accused was present and so was the Director of Public Prosecutions but not Mr. Tagaraniana.

Before 9.00 am, and also, between 9.00 a.m. and 9.45 a.m., no explanation had been received by the court or even the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the reason for Mr. Tagaraniana's absence.

The court was of the view that Mr. Tagaraniana would have to explain why he failed to be present in court if he turned up. The court then adjourned to 11.00 a.m.

The court resumed at 11.15 a.m. Again the Director of Public Prosecutions and the accused were present but not Mr. Tagaraniana. No contact had been made with the court clerk or staff to say why he was still not present.

The Assistant Registrar of High Court made checks with the Public Solicitor's office who advised that Mr. Tagaraniana did not even call into Public Solicitor's office that morning nor have they received any message from Mr. Tagaraniana to say why he did not come to the office. Attempts were made to contact Mr Tagaraniana at his house by telephone but it was not possible as the telephone appeared to be disconnected. Attempt was also made by the Assistant Registrar of High Court to contact Mr. Tagaraniana's wife at her place of work but he was told by someone in that office that she had gone out of the office.

The trial was put back to 1.45 p.m.

When the court resumed at 1.45 p.m. Mr. Tagaraniana was again not present. No message had been given to the court at all to say why he was still not present.

The court by then was clearly of the view that Mr. Tagaraniana's conduct in being absent from the court without explanation would amount to contempt of court. I therefore ordered an investigation into the reason for Mr. Tagaraniana's absence. I also ordered Mr. Tagaraniana to show cause why I should not hold him in contempt of court.

The case was then adjourn to 9.00 a.m. the next day Thursday 7th October 1993.

On 7 October 1993, Mr Tagaraniana appeared in court. Having heard the brief report of the investigation conducted by the police and submitted to the court by the learned Director of Public Prosecutions, I invited Mr. Tagaraniana to show cause why I should not hold him in contempt of court.

The account given by Mr. Tagaraniana was that in the evening of 5 October 1993 he went with some of his friends to have some drinks at the Honiara Hotel and then he went home at about 9.30 p.m. that evening. When he woke up the next morning on 6 October 1993, he experienced pain in one of his knees for which he had been receiving treatment since 1 October 1993.

Mr. Tagaraniana further stated that he asked his wife to telephone the court and inform the court that he would not be able to make it to the court. He therefore believed that his wife must have informed the court of his absence.

The fact is that the court had waited the whole day on 6 October 1993 and had received no explanation whatsoever either from his wife or Mr. Tagaraniana himself. His wife was probably very busy taking care of their little daughter who had suffered malaria and diarrhoea and that she might have forgotten to contact the court. She had to take the child to the clinic for tests. This was probably why she was not at her office when the Assistant Registrar of High Court rang her office.

The next event, as described by Mr. Tagaraniana was that he left his house at West Kola Ridge and came to the main market in a vehicle driven by his uncle. He went to the market with the daughter who had already been taken back to the house by his wife. The purpose of going to the market was to seek advice on traditional medicine from his mother who was at the market.

I accept it was reasonable to expect a parent to seek help when a child is ill as Mr. Tagaraniana had done in this case. There are however two difficulties faced by Mr. Tagaraniana here.

Firstly, if it was true that he asked his wife to informed the court earlier in the morning, a prudent lawyer would no doubt follow that up and he should have asked his wife when she returned with the child to the house as to whether she did in fact contacted the court or not. If he had done that and found that his wife had forgotten to inform the court of his absence, he would then have taken the step of making sure that the court was notified either by himself or reminding his wife to contact the court. Mr. Tagaraniana did not see fit to do so.

Secondly, if Mr. Tagaraniana had found out from his wife that she had forgotten to contact the court, he should have at least on the way to the market stopped at his office and informed the court by phone. He did not see it necessary to do that either.

I do not think the wife can be blamed for not informing the court of Mr. Tagaraniana's absence. As I have said, she was probably very busy with her sick child. If there was any blame it has to be on Mr. Tagaraniana.

He is the counsel representing the accused in the murder trial. He ought to have known the gravity of his client's case. He, as an officer of the court, should know when to inform the court of his absence from such a trial. He owes a duty to the court. His wife does not owe any such duty to the court.

Contempt of court is a serious matter. It involves words spoken or otherwise published or acts done which are intended or likely to interfere with or obstruct the fair administration of justice. There is no doubt that failure by a Solicitor to attend a hearing deliberately would amount to contempt of court, as he would be interfering with the course of justice.

The question therefore is whether Mr. Tagaraniana deliberately failed to attend the hearing in this case. He said that there was no deliberate intention on his part to be absent from the court. But I think I can look at the question of whether or not his failure to attend the trial was deliberate by his conduct at the time.

I have already set out the circumstances surrounding the conduct of Mr. Tagaraniana on 6 October 1993. The failure here was nothing to do with his wife's action or inaction. It was his own making.

The two opportunities which I have mentioned earlier were clearly ones which Mr. Tagaraniana could have made use of in order to inform the court. There is no good explanation as to why he did not take either of those opportunities as a prudent lawyer would have done, to inform the court of his absence. He had those opportunities, yet he did nothing to contact the court. There was absolutely nothing beyond his control which could prevent him from informing the court.

The only possible conclusion that the court can come to is that his absence was deliberate. It must therefore amount to contempt of court and I so find Mr. Tagaraniana to be in contempt of court.

As this is the first case of this kind to be dealt with by this court, I propose to treat this case as a warning, not only to Mr. Tagaraniana but to all lawyers appearing in courts. Lawyers, like Police Officers, must realise that as Officers of the court, they owe a higher duty to the court than any other person. They must refrain from conducting themselves so as to be in contempt of court. They must be the first to take the lead in showing that obedience to the orders and directions of the court is of paramount importance in the administration of justice especially now that we are at this early stage of the development of our judicial system.

I also give the warning that further repetition of such conduct in the future will be treated by this court with severity.

(G.J.B. Muria)
CHIEF JUSTICE

[Sentence: Fine $20.00]