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

Piu v Reginam [2004] SBHC 22; HC-CRC 054 of 2004 (4 March 2004)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Criminal Case Number 54 of 2004

ROSS PIU

-V-

REGINA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Palmer C.J.)

Hearing: 4^th March 2004
Ruling: 4^th March 2004

L. Kershaw for the Applicant
J. Cauchi for the Respondent

Palmer C.J.: I gave orders dismissing the bail application of Ross Piu (“the Applicant”), on 4^th March 2004 and said I would give further details of my reasons for doing so, which I now do.

The Applicant has been charged with the following offences:

• two counts of arson,
• one count of possession of firearm without a licence,
• another count for possession in a public place,
• one count of robbery,
• one count of being a member of an unlawful society
• one count of simple larceny
• one count of demanding property with menaces, and
• two counts of abducting with intent to confine person.
  

In December 2003 the Applicant applied for bail but was refused. Since then, he has been charged with additional offences. He now comes to this court for bail under section 106(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. If anything his circumstances had not changed for the better, to the contrary they have changed for the worse in that he has since been charged with additional offences.

I have pointed out many times that the decision whether to grant bail is a matter within the discretion of the court. In determining that question court is required to consider whether the circumstances of the offence and offender require that an accused be remanded in custody. Onus is on prosecution to show that substantial grounds exist as to why bail should not be granted. In murder cases however, defence is required to point to some exceptional circumstance justifying the grant of bail.

The Applicant has been charged with numerous serious offences, two of which carry maximum prison sentences of life imprisonment; arson and robbery fall into this category. The offence of abduction with intent to confine a person carries a maximum sentence of seven years.

The briefs of evidence attached to the affidavit of Rhonda Michele Panjkov (“Panjkov”) dated 4^th March 2004 contain accounts of direct eye witnesses to the offences committed by the Applicant. They cannot be described as weak. If convicted he faces a lengthy custodial sentence.

The circumstances under which the various offences he has been charged with had been committed are also serious. They relate to violent crimes and the use of firearms. At paragraph 10(2) of her affidavit, Ms. Panjkov deposed that many victims of the Applicant carry mental and physical scars, which is consistent with the submissions of prosecution of the level of seriousness of the crimes that the Applicant has been involved in.

As to his personal details, very little has been provided apart from the submission from his counsel that if granted bail he could return to his village and be required to report regularly to Police at Tetere.

Ms. Kershaw has also sought to rely on the fact that a number of other offenders charged with similar offences in the area had been granted bail and have been complying with their bail conditions apart from one who has breached bail. She submits that these should be viewed in favour of her client as supporting his application for bail.

Whilst I accept that bail may have been granted in other cases, it must not be forgotten that each case has to be considered on its own merits. Unless those cases relate to the same circumstances and offences for which the Applicant has been charged with, little reliance can be placed on them. It is not in dispute that the cases cited relate to different incidents.

I have carefully considered the question of likelihood of absconding by the Applicant if released on bail. Ms. Kershaw relies heavily on the success of other persons released on bail who have complied with their bail conditions to suggest that this Applicant accordingly should be allowed bail. Unfortunately such reliance is mis-placed. Each bail application has to be considered on its own merits. Also having heard Ms. Panjkov during cross-examination and having read her affidavit, I am not so sure that if released this Applicant will not abscond. This Applicant has been linked to membership of an unlawful group, the Central Neutral Force (“CNF”) which has membership of about 40 persons. Ms. Panjkov has described difficulties in the arrest of other members in that unlawful society numbering about 30 who have gone into hiding in inaccessible areas in the area; so far only about ten persons have been arrested and that they are looking out for the others. She expressed concerns that there is real possibility that this Applicant if released could abscond and go into hiding with those other members. I accept prosecution’s fears are justified in this regard.

The stakes are high as against this Applicant and he has more reason to abscond if released on bail.

On the issue of possible interference with the course of justice, I accept Prosecution’s submission that there is real possibility that this could occur. There has been an instance of an attempt by the leader of the CNF, Stanley Kaoni, also a co-accused with this Applicant, by letter dated 13^th February 2004 of an attempt to influence people at Tuararana Village to withdraw their complaints against members of CNF from the Police. The risk that this Applicant would interfere is real, the stakes are high and it would be to his interest if complaints are withdrawn. I am not prepared to take that risk and have the administration of justice brought to disrepute by this Applicant.

Also the possibility of commission of further offences cannot be described as remote or unlikely in this instance. The stakes are high, if released he has all the reason not only to interfere with witnesses and to cover his tracks but if he can get away with it, it is not unlikely that further offences may be committed.

In the circumstances the discretion must be exercised against the granting of bail.

Orders of the Court:

Bail denied.

The Court.