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

Mae v Reginam [2004] SBHC 12; HC-CRC 027 of 2004 (11 February 2004)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case No. 27 of 2004

CHRIS MAE

-V-

REGINAM

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer CJ)

Hearing: 10^th February 2004
Ruling: 11^th February 2004

K. Averre for the Applicant
C. Ryan for the Respondent

Palmer CJ: The Applicant, Chris Mae (“the accused”) was arrested on 15^th October 2003, charged with the offence of Robbery and remanded in custody. The allegation relates to the taking of a vehicle with force and threats of violence against SOL-LAW, a legal firm in Honiara on or about May 2002. On 11^th November 2003 following an application for bail by his lawyer, the accused was released on bail with conditions. On 1^st December 2003 he was re-arrested on an additional charge for the abduction of Selwyn Saki and remanded in custody. He has been in custody since. He now comes to this court for bail after having been refused bail in the court below.

The grounds for bail are similar to Lawrence Kelesiwasi v. Regina^[1]; that he had demonstrated that he can be trusted having been released earlier on bail with conditions and had complied with them, and that it would be unfair not to grant bail when other co-accuseds had been released on bail.

Prosecution opposes bail on a number of grounds; the seriousness of the offences, that a number of prosecution witnesses only came forward to give statements in anticipation of the accused being denied bail, safety concerns of prosecution witnesses and their families, probability that the accused would abscond, that the accused is considered a flight risk and that he has access to high powered firearms and has stated an intention to use them to commit further offences.

The offences of abduction and robbery are very serious offences, carry penalties ranging from 7 years to life imprisonment. There are no statements from witnesses but the summary of facts appears to have been deduced from persons who had witnessed the commission of the offences. The strength of the prosecution case at this point of time therefore cannot be accurately commented on in the absence of witness statements, though in terms of the likely sentence to be imposed, the accused will face a lengthy custodial sentence if convicted.

The accused deposed to having community ties, a place of fixed abode in Honiara, though more exact details were not disclosed. I accept in his favour he had been earlier released on bail and had complied with conditions imposed.

I also take note of the sense of unfairness deposed to by this accused in his affidavit that whilst other co-accuseds had been released on bail by the courts, he continues to be kept in remand.

I have listened carefully to the submissions of learned Counsels in this case, I have read the affidavit filed in support by the accused and the affidavit of Errol Anthony Robert Corry filed 10^th February 2004 in opposition to bail and to his evidence under cross examination.

Of the matters raised in the affidavit of Mr. Corry, of crucial significance in this bail application is the belief that the accused has access to high powered firearms and has indicated his intention to use them. In conjunction to this, is the belief that the accused may abscond and interfere with witnesses and the commission of further offences.

When probed in cross examination about his belief Inspector Corry invoked public interest immunity. From the submissions of Mr. Averre, counsel for the accused, it appears that little disclosure had been provided regarding details giving rise to such belief. If there is any truth in that submission, then it is incumbent upon prosecution to disclose as much detail, which would enable the accused to test the veracity of such beliefs, without having to disclose the identity of the informant. The accused has denied access to any such weapons but is unable to refute them without the necessary details. It may turn out the information provided by the informant to Police is completely false and mere fabrications. Unless sufficient details are provided, the accused is denied the right to challenge their veracity without having to disclose identities.

On the balance of probabilities, it cannot be said that there is no material before me of a substantial nature which gives rise to a justifiable concern in my mind at this point of time, that the accused may abscond, interfere with witnesses and commit further offences. The unchallenged evidence of Inspector Corry at this point of time is sufficient to tilt the scales.

Bail is denied. The accused is to be remanded and to be brought before the Central Magistrate Courts for review on Friday 20^th February 2004 at 9.00 am.

THE COURT

^[1] HCSI-CRC 24 of 2004, 11^th February 2004