HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 68 of 1999

REGINA

–V-

LUKE SAPE MAHORO

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Muria, CJ)
At Munda

Date of Hearing: 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30 May 2003
Date of Judgment: 30 May 2003

RB Talasasa for the Prosecutions
D. Tigulu for the Accused.

Muria CJ: The accused, Luke Sape Mahoro, has been charged with two counts of murder, contrary to section 200 of the Penal Code. It was alleged that on 2 May 1998, in the sea off Varie Island, in Roviana Lagoon, Western Province, he murdered one May Podeke. It was further alleged that he, on the same date and at the same location, also murdered another Everlyn Hina. The accused pleaded Not Guilty to both counts. I remind myself that the onus is on the prosecution to establish the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt in the mind of the court, the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt.

Brief background to the case

On Friday 1st May 1998, the deceased, May Podeke and her one and half year old grand daughter, Everlyn Hina (also deceased), set out from Kozou Village in their own canoe, but in the company of Rina Bangara and others, to Volani village, on Volani Island, to attend a birthday party. On the way they stopped and spent the night at Balalae village, on Malangari Island, since it was about 7.30pm and it was already getting dark. Early the next morning of Saturday 2nd May 1998, at about 5.30 am both deceased left for Volani village. The accused also left that morning for Volani, setting out from Baraulu village. Both May Podeke (dec’d) and her grand-daughter, Everlyn Hina (dec’d), never made it to Volani, for they were found dead and their bodies floating at sear near Varie Island, in the Roviana Lagoon. The accused was the first person to see the body of May Podeke (deceased) floating at sea.

The arrest and interview

Following report of the incident to the police, a nurse, accompanied by a team of police investigators travelled to Volani, on the same day, Saturday 2 May 1998 to examine the bodies of the deceased. Having collected information from the people, the police returned on 12th May 1998 to Baraulu for further investigation. The next day, 13th May, the accused was arrested and brought to Munda Police Station. At first the accused was not placed in the cell at the police station due to threats on his life from the relatives of the deceased. The police therefore had to keep the accused with them in the police quarters for his safety at night and only kept him in the cell during the day.

The police returned to Baraulu on 14th May 1998 for further investigation, and following that further investigation, the accused was interviewed under caution on the next day, 15th May 1998, at about 12.15 pm in the CID office at Munda Police Station. Present at that interview were, Police Constable (now Sergeant) John Warren Matapaza (interviewing officer), Police Constable Alfred Kadi (witnessing officer) and Luke Sape Mahoro (accused). The interview was conducted after explaining the nature and purpose of the interview, and administering the usual caution, including the right to remain silent, to the accused. The interview was conducted in Pidgin.

In the course of the interview, the accused gave his story of what happened that day, 2nd May 1998. He recounted his trips by canoe that day to Volani Island, and how he met the deceased at sea, near Varie Island. The accused recalled how the deceased, May Podeke, shouted to him asking for tobacco, to which he did not reply. He related, during the interview, how he alighted from his canoe and went to the deceased’s canoe. The water at the place was shallow. He described how, upon coming to the deceased’s canoe, he dragged May Podeke (dec’d) out from her canoe and pushed her into the sea, pressing her under water until she died, holding her grand-daughter tightly closed to her. Both May and her grand-daughter died as the result of what the accused did to them. After having done so, and after realizing what he had done, he said that he came back to senses and cried. He then left for Volani where he told the people that he found a canoe floating with nobody in it, which might belong to somebody going to the market. Later that morning, after his return from Baraulu to get tobacco, the accused picked the body of May Podeke (dec’d) and took it to Volani. The body of Everlyn Hina (dec’d) was found and picked up by others.

In his second interviews conducted at Gizo CID office, on 23rd July 1998, in the presence of Police Constable (now Sergeant) Vincent Eria (interviewing officer) and Sgt. Pattenson Fomani (witnessing officer), the accused explained in details his movements on that day of 2nd May 1998. The explanations were recorded in the ROI as well as in a sketch map, a copy of which was reproduced by D/Sgt. Eria (the original having been misplaced and could not be located).

The ROI admitted in evidence

The admissibility of the Record of Interview (ROI) had been challenged by the defence. The Court has now ruled that the ROI conducted on 15 May 1998 at Munda CID office and on 23 July 1998 at Gizo CID office are admissible as evidence against the accused in this trial. The admissions contained in those two ROI now form the backbone of the prosecution case against the accused in this trial.

The Law

The law requires the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any doubt, the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt. The law as contained in section 200 of the Penal Code requires that the prosecution must prove to the required standard two things. First, the prosecution must prove that the accused killed the deceased and secondly, that he did so with malice aforethought. To establish ‘malice aforethought’ which is the required state of mind to be established, the pros must establish that the accused intended to cause the death of or grievous bodily harm to the deceased. This state of mind can also be established by showing that the accused knew that his action that causes death will probably cause the death of or grievous bodily harm to the deceased. In either case, it is murder if the prosecution proves such a state of mind in the accused.

The evidence

The prosecution called ten (10) witnesses and now further relies on the admission by the accused as contained in his ROI. The evidence contained in the ROI, not only places the accused on the scene of the crime but also shows that he was the person responsible for the death of the two deceased in this case. 

The story of what happened that day of 2 May 1998, as told by the accused himself, has found corroboration in the story related by the prosecution witnesses, especially that of Rina Bangara (Pw2) Arther Bani Longa (PW3), Zau Kere (PW 4), Ivy Gula Teko (PW 8), Qemu Vuru (PW9) and Jessie Sape (PW10). The evidence of these witnesses supported the accused’s own story as given to the police at Munda and Gizo during the two interviews. Those accounts are specific and can only be described so convincingly by the person who carried out the act or by someone who knew exactly what had happened. They certainly, to the court’s satisfaction, are too good to be the work of concoction. 

It would appear that the defence has sought to advance the proposition that if the ROIs are to be accepted as justifying the conviction of this accused, then the court must be mindful that the accused is not acting alone in what he did. The plan as long ago as 1996 had been in place. Consideration must be given of the possibility of other actors in this case. I am mindful of that implication, but that is a matter that rests with the police and DPP’s office. For now this accused has confirmed his part in this crime. He may be part of a conspiracy, I do not know. Perhaps he now realizes that his co-accused has left him to shoulder punishment of their conspiracy. It is perhaps one of the reasons for his attempt to escape from his confession. I leave those suppositions aside. For they no longer matter to what this court has to decide today.

In this case this court has to decide the guilt of this accused on the evidence before the court. Having considered the evidence, I come to the firm conclusion that the accused has committed the crime with which he was charged. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. He had caused the death of two innocent people who were his relatives, May Podeke (deceased) and Everlyn Hina (deceased). He did so in the manner amounting to murder under section 200 Penal Code. The court therefore found him guilty of the crime of murder and I convict him accordingly.

Verdict:	Guilty of murder.

(GJB Muria)
Chief Justice