HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case Number 39 of 2004

Manesseh Maelanga

v.

Regina

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer CJ.)

Hearing: 17th February 2004
Ruling: 18th February 2004

Mrs. Samuels for the Applicant
C. Ryan for the Respondent

Palmer CJ.: The Applicant, Manesseh Maelanga (“the accused”) has been arrested and charged with numerous offences, for the purposes of this application, totalling up to 18 offences, details of which are set out more clearly in annexure “A” to the affidavit of Elizabeth Jane Wheeley filed 16th February 2004. Those offences include malicious damage (2 counts), larceny from person (1 count), intimidation (5 counts), demanding property with menaces (1 count), indecent assault (4 counts), abduction (1 count), false pretence (1 count), common assault (1 count), rape (1 count) and robbery (1 count). Maximum penalties range from 1 year for common assault on the lower scale to life imprisonment for robbery and rape. This string of offences he has been charged with cannot be described as not serious.

He was arrested on 4th November 2003 and has been in remand since. Various applications for bail had been made but these had been refused. He now comes to this court under section 106(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) for bail.

The accused relies primarily on his affidavit filed 2nd February 2004 in support of his application, in which he deposes that he will not abscond, that his passport can be surrendered to the court, that he has a place in town where he can reside and that other restrictions can be imposed against him to secure his attendance in court.

The prosecution on the other hand opposes bail. They rely on the affidavit of Elizabeth Jane Wheeley filed 16th February 2004 and annexures attached, her evidence in cross-examination, and various briefs of evidence adduced in support of the offences charged to date. 

The principal grounds in which bail is opposed are summarized in paragraph 15 of the affidavit of Ms. Wheeley as follows:

(i)	the number, nature and seriousness of the offences with which the applicant stands charged.
(ii)	It is alleged that the applicant has committed offences over a prolonged period of time from October 2000 to July 2003.
(iii)	The applicant is likely to abscond if granted bail.
(iv)	The applicant will interfere with witnesses.
(v)	The applicant will use his former position to influence other Police Officers to intimidate or at the very least influence witnesses to change their evidence.
(vi)	The applicant will commit further offences whilst on bail.

It cannot be denied the accused is charged with very serious offences. These range from misdemeanours to felonies and which when tallied up, raised the stakes against this accused even higher. Whilst some of the offences he is charged with on their own may be minor, when these are repeated over a period of time, the level of seriousness to be attached to them cannot be minimized.

In most of the offences he is charged with, the evidence which prosecution will be relying on especially in respect of the matters now before the court below for hearing on 27th February 2004 for malicious damage, and 2nd to 4th March 2004 for various offences committed in relation to the incident at the Point Cruz Yacht Club on 8th May 2002, will be from direct eye witnesses most of whom were victims in respect of those offences. It cannot be said that the evidence at this point of time is weak. I have had opportunity to peruse those briefs of evidence. The likely sentence if convicted would obviously be a custodial sentence.

The allegations pertaining to the circumstances of those offences cannot be described as minor as well. They were serious, violent in nature and with threats. Alcohol may have played a part in respect of some of them and in one instance a firearm was carried around to intimidate and harass those in the premises. Further his offending occurred over a period of time. Their seriousness is accentuated by the fact that this accused is a very senior member, a Superintendent in the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (“RSIPF”). I need not repeat what I’ve said in earlier cases as to what is expected from such officers. When these are blatantly disregarded, the prosecution is entitled to express their grave reservations as to any assurances that this accused may now seek to make to this court. 

I note this accused has now been interdicted from the RSIPF without pay, that he is precluded from returning to his house at the Police married quarters and that his wife and children currently reside in Fiji.
 
The prosecution fear that if released the accused may interfere with witnesses and the course of justice. They have cited two instances where a co-accused, also a police officer charged for similar offences relating to fraud charges in connection with falsifying time sheets whilst providing security for BOC Gases over a certain period of time had attempted to influence witnesses to interfere with the course of justice. The second instance was when there were attempts by the wife of this accused to effect reconciliation with the complainant some three years after the event and only a few weeks after the accused had been arrested. It was suggested to this court that this may have been orchestrated by the accused in an attempt to interfere with the course of justice. Ms. Wheeley informed the court that from her conversations with the complainant she formed the view that the complainant felt intimidated about the approach although a third party was engaged to approach her about it.

Fears of interference with witnesses were also expressed in relation to the very senior position this accused held in the Police Force before his arrest and that he still wields such influence with some members of the Police Force.

Concerns were also expressed on the possibility that the accused may abscond if released and the possibility of commission of further offences.

It is for prosecution to demonstrate to this court that substantial grounds exist which warrant the remand of this accused pending trial of the various charges that have been laid against him. I have listened carefully to submissions of both counsels in court, I have read the various documents filed in support and in opposition to the application of bail and considered the evidence of Ms. Wheeley.

The totality of the circumstances of this accused and the circumstances of the numerous offences for which he has been charged with must be taken into account by this court in assessing whether bail should be granted or not. When these are carefully balanced, I am more than satisfied that prosecution has demonstrated to this court that substantial grounds exist for refusing bail. I do not need to repeat what has been canvassed in this judgement but all those factors taken together, coupled with the fact that the trials for some of the charges of this accused are due to commence soon at the Magistrates Court warrant his remand in custody. He is to be returned to custody to await commencement of his trial in nine days time on 27th February 2004 at 9.00 a.m. at the Central Magistrates Court. I make orders accordingly.

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

The accused Manesseh Maelanga is hereby ordered to be remanded in custody at the Central Prison Rove until such time as he is to be produced at the Central Magistrates Court Honiara on 27th February 2004 at 9 o’clock in the forenoon to stand trial on various charges.

The Court.